|
Meinberg posted:
I'm actually very interested in this proposal, Senator. After all, it's clear from the course of events that the chief uniting principle of the party, "Let's not be Rome," is a ship that has sailed, and many are uncertain what the party stands for -- including its own members. While it'd be convenient to achieve majority through being vague and unified in not having a particular platform besides "Not those other guys," I do not believe it'd be best for the Empire. I am also sorry to hear the Scruffles will be taking a vacation this session; petting him was an excellent distraction from the screaming flying around, and I've always been fond of this proud tradition. Better a dog than a horse, I always say. D3m3 fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Mar 20, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
"Bichri"? What kind of name is "Bichri"? Now Traianos. That's a fine name. The Emperor wears it well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
mageofthesands posted:"Bichri"? What kind of name is "Bichri"? Now Traianos. That's a fine name. The Emperor wears it well.  The name sounds familiar, I believe it's some kind of fish from the Nile. Whether or not this means the Sultan is actually some sort of terrifying Egyptian fish-man remains to be seen. More to the point, Rome has Rome once again! And how appropriate its reconquest was, with not a drop of blood spilled in the Eternal City. And our late Empress regaining significant regions elsewhere and doing so much for the Empire, surely she has found peace and reward in heaven a thousand times what she gained on Earth. To the new Emperor! May he rule with the late Empress' legacy guiding him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:For those of you keeping score at home, that's three out of five pentarchs. Can we call it a pentarchy yet? It rounds up to five. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Sindai posted:Three down, two to go. To Jerusalem, my brothers! I endorse this proposal. Also, while I admit that my opinion might be viewed as meddling in the internal affairs of another party, I do believe the notion of dividing the New Byzantines into more strongly-defined camps - as opposed to their current status of 'there are a lot of us and we don't stand for much except maybe not doing what those other guys say' - might be beneficial to all and sundry. Certainly the amorphous nature of the New Byzantine platform and ideals is not helping anyone. (OOC: Of course, this might be all for naught if Rincewind sets out a more concrete platform for the New Byzantines in the next Senate Roll Call)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
It would be wonderful if you could give Traianos a beard to cover up those strange fungal growths beneath his chin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:
 This seems most reasonable. The platform of the New Byzantines is for the reconquest of Rome and against the reconquest of Rome, for an attack on the Turks and against an attack on the Turks. I for one cannot divine what the New Byzantines stand for, and, I suspect, neither can they. We have a party for the recovery of ancient territory, a party for the promotion of the Orthodox faith (and the Empress's great reforms in giving much territory to new Eparchs is one that the Milvians thank her for most profusely, and urge her son to follow in her hallowed footsteps), a party for slavish loyalty to the Komnenids - but the New Byzantines seems to stand for very little. However, we know that the Old Romans stand for an expansion in territory and the military, the Komnenoi stand for a centralization of power, and the Milvians stand for an expansion in church power and conversion. Perhaps the New Byzantines could be reformed as a party that seeks the expansion of the power of merchants, wealth, and infrastructure?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
occipitallobe posted:However, we know that the Old Romans stand for an expansion in territory and the military, the Komnenoi stand for a centralization of power, and the Milvians stand for an expansion in church power and conversion. Perhaps the New Byzantines could be reformed as a party that seeks the expansion of the power of merchants, wealth, and infrastructure?  This seems wise council to me. Each of the factions in the senate has a core issue that you can clearly assign to them. In this day and age where minor parties are required to find hospitality in the boughs of the greater parties that already exist, it behooves the New Byzantines to rebrand themselves in a more clear way. The Steppes and Republics party already sits with the New Byzanines, and perhaps the Fraternalists might reconsider their alliance with the Milvians if the New Byzantines dedicated themselves to being the party of the growth and stability of the Empire, by wealth and knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
occipitallobe posted:However, we know that the Old Romans stand for an expansion in territory and the military, the Komnenoi stand for a centralization of power, and the Milvians stand for an expansion in church power and conversion. Perhaps the New Byzantines could be reformed as a party that seeks the expansion of the power of merchants, wealth, and infrastructure?   Improvement to the infrastructure of the empire and it's continued prosperity has always been what the New Byzantines stood for last I checked. Perhaps the more expansionist members of our ranks simply find the attitudes of the Old Romans to be well, antiquated to join in with them properly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Personally, I had always thought that we stood for absolute political pragmatism. Personally, I have always been one to vote for taking any opportunity that arises and rather adverse to voting along the lines of any iron-clad party doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
PART NINETEEN: Trajan Horse (1281-1285) The early reign of Traianos (Trajan) II is a difficult to assess historically. He was obviously extraordinarily talented in all the arts of statecraft-- especially his silver-tongued diplomacy, which had been instrumental during his mother's reign, and for rallying the nobles of Sicily behind him to reclaim his father's throne for himself. By the time he inherited the throne at the age of 46, however, he was already content with his lot in life, and the state of the empire. He saw himself as a steward of the accomplishments of Valeria the Apostle, rather than a conquerer in his own right. This caused some friction with the expansionist Senate. Perhaps the best window into his early reign is his public proclamations... Public Proclamations of the Emperor Traianos II Regrettably, with the death of our beloved Empress Valeria the Apostle, the alliance between the Roman Empire and Castille has been dissolved. Our soldiers are presently evacuating Iberia, and will be safe and home several months from now.  To celebrate both the memory of Valeria and two centuries of Komnenos rule, I have ordered celebratory games and races held in Constantinople.  Furthermore, I have decreed that my son Kyriakos be granted the title of Symbasileus. This way, an adult heir will be able to step in should-- God forfend-- anything happen to me.  Regrettably, Khan Boroghul of the Golden Horde has died, and the Mongols have backslid into pagan barbarism. Rest assured, I have dispatched my most talented clergy to rectify this setback to the true faith.   In fact, the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregorios II himself has elected to go east to convert these heathens.  To celebrate my return to Constantinople from Iberia, I have ordered a grand tournament to be held. Let the martial prowess which has restored Rome to glory now be proudly displayed before the people of our city!  I shall dedicate these games to my beloved wife Empress Farida— my partner in all things.  Following the more martial displays of the tournament will be additional games. I myself shall participate in tzykanion!  And should events conspire so that I lose the day-- well, then, so be it! I am not Commodus on the sands of the Colosseum. I shall be gracious in defeat.  Humility is a virtue to which we can all aspire.  And how better to show humility to both my ancestors and God than to visit the city of the apostles not as the son of its liberator, but a humble supplicant.   I am pleased to announce that, with the support of the New Byzantines who have looked after the Empire's stewards for decades, continued my mother's tireless efforts to improve the infrastructure of the empire.  To celebrate the new year of 1282, I shall sponsor a grand series of races at the Hippodrome of Constantinople. As is traditional in my family, I shall place a small bet on the Greens. Should they lose to the Blues— well, then I shall be honored to contribute some small portion of my fortunes to the upkeep of these grounds.   There is no such thing as the Black Chamber. I am, in truth, slightly offended that I should ever be accused of such underhanded and dishonorable conduct.  It is true that I have used the not inconsiderable powers of the empire to try to influence foreign nations. But my only desire is to bring the grace of God to those foreign despots who have shunned it.  For I am a pious man.  A humble man.  And a virtuous man.  And I shall remain resolute in the face of adversity.  No matter what.   Assassination Scorecard: Tsars Killed: 2 Badshahs Killed: 2 Sultans Killed: 7 (plus 1 battle death) Nosy Chancellors Killed: 2 Katepanos Killed: 1 Mad Bishops Killed: 1 The Senate session is beginning soon! If you have a subparty to create, or if your subparty is under the wrong main party, or if I just missed a party somehow, please let me know ASAP! Here are the current parties and laws: The Old Romans (OR)     The New Byzantines (NB) --Steppes and Republics (SR) --Loyalists (LY) --Fraternalists (FR) --Centrists (CN) The Milvians (ML)  The Komnenians (KM) --Hellenic Restoration (HR)      The Discordians (DC) --Unitas (UN) --Hellenic Restoration (HR) --Guiding Light (GL) --True Religion's Advocates In Time Of Rebellion & Strife (TR) --The People (TP) LAWS OF THE EMPIRE Directives completed during the reign of Valeria are struck through, and no longer on the books. Italian Re-Conquista Act (Reconquer Italy! But, um, in a non-Old Roman way) NewMars (NB) (15) The Pilgrimage Protection Act (Protect Pilgrims by starting a bloody, chaotic war in the Holy Land to annex it) (5) The Nova Mediterranean Act (conquer Black Sea coast) (5) Use Caution, Empress Act (Try to avoid wars the empire can't win)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
NewMars posted:
If you're married to that stance, then splitting your party along the lines Meinberg proposed may be the way for you to go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
I feel that Unitas would be better served under the Old Roman banner. Would I be able switch now, or will I need to wait for the vote?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Lord Cyrahzax posted:
You can indeed switch now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:You can indeed switch now.  Excellent! Here's to new friends, whether they want me or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:
Just a small housekeeping matter, the Fraternalists joined up with the Milvians as a subparty a little bit ago, while we're certainly friendly with the New Byzantines, officially we're not one of their sub parties.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
The New Byzantines The Phanariotes I could not disagree more with the idea that the New Byzantines are irrelevant. It is our duty to ensure that pragmatism rules the day in the empire, not the excesses of the other parties. To be a moderating influence is neither pointless nor dishonorable. But to be moderate, we absolutely should go along with the proposals of Old Romans or Milvians, when and if they make sense. In my view, including a focus on internal development serves as a counterweight to relentless expansionism, just as tolerance serves as a counterweight to religious extremism. Both expansion and being religious is desirable in moderation, it is the purpose of our party to ensure others do not go too far. If all the Old Romans stood for was crying into their wine glasses over the glory that was pre-Christian Rome, their party would be as silly and pointless as Hellenic Restoration or Unitas. It is the Old Roman drive for expansion which is at once a potential danger of overextension and an asset if harnessed. If the Milvians oppose findind allies among the western Christians, then their piety becomes excessive. But an opportunity to end the schism by convincing the westerners of the true faith has benefits both spiritual and temporal. In short, should our party oppose the Old Romans or Milvians for the sake of opposing them? No. Does that make us superfluous? No. That our Brother Senators make sensible proposals is a trend we should encourage as best we can, not something that should make us wring our hands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
Actually, being a moderate is kinda pathetic and pointless, in that either one does or does not. Half-heartedly supporting this or that, trying to curb the behaviour of others rather than offering solutions of ones own, all of it seems to be something for servants rather than people such us. Besides which it seems to suggest that the Emperor isn't fully capable of deciding what to follow or dismiss, just as the Empress did with the call to convert the hun, which is pretty idiotic. That said, all the parties are shades of pointless, with ours, being the most steadfastly loyal being the least so, but as I've said many a time, if the whole edifice came crashing down the Empire would go on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:
We call ourselves Komnenians, but I suppose we are really loyalists to the preservation and strengthening of the Imperial structure. The Komnenian dynasty is the current personification of that structure, and so we fight for the strengthening of their dynasty with tooth and claw. And if their line went extinct, we would weep bitter tears. But we would move on, because the Roman Empire always needs a steward, and that steward needs trustworthy advisers. And lord forbid, if that dark time comes we will be there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Caustic Soda posted:
The problem is that a position of preventing excess has nowhere to stand when those you deem as potentially excessive aren't being excessive. Take my own party: We reject the bitter gall of those who adopt the exclusionist Unitas perspective, we do not overindulge in the Senate as the Komemnians and Old Romans do, we accept the pragmatism of standing alongside Christians of dubious and wayward teaching against those who reject Christ altogether. Our proposals generally are eminently sensible, and more importantly, Entirely in keeping with our core ethos. By saying 'Our ethos is moderation', you simply carve yourselves into an authorising stamp for parties which actually do have agendas. Thus, for the sake of a strong senate, I must Support the proposal of New Byzantine Senator Meinberg that the New Byzantines be dissolved into Pragmatist and Inclusionist factions. I suggest those New Byzantines unsatisfied with what the party has become take the initiative in claiming one of these successor institutions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:
If the line went extinct, than yes - I could understand us moving on to a new family. But I feel that my relationship to the Komnenians is to the family rather than the Empire. The two are intertwined, and I could not support a Emperor/Empress without them being a Komnenian. Instead I would fight tooth an nail to put the family back into power. I guess that would make me the ultimate loyalist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
@Senator Impy: Certainly if both Milvians and Old Romans are nothing but sensible from now on, our party would indeed be superfluous. That has not been the case in the past, nor do I expect it to be so in the future. I am very happy that the current ideas of both parties are practical, but that does not mean future ideas will be. To be an authorizing stamp is pointles only if all we do is agree forevermore. So long as the New Byzantines use our influence to deny stupidity, we have purpose. To claim wisdom by right of opposing Unitas is frivolous. Even the Guiding Light seem wise in comparison. Converting to Islam might at least allow for one ally in the form of the Ilkhan, even as it earned us the enmity of the entire west and ensured our damnation. Unitas would merely ruin us, and be no better for the salvation of our souls. @ Senator Penguin: *Raised Eyebrows* We are servants. All of us are servants of the Emperor, just as we were servants of the Empress before him. That we are also nobles and/or wealthy merchants who can be waited on hand and foot by our servants does not change that. The entire point of the existance of the Senate is to be a sounding board for ideas. Certainly the Emperor will make the final decision on wich ideas to listen to. In so far as the senate comes up with good ideas that aren't also glaringly obvious, we serve our Emperor. If you wish to spend your time on holding parties and being sycophantic, that is your decision to make. But while having sycophants can be fun, it isn't really all that useful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:
And as long as the line survives I will as well. They have the divine right of kings, and have proven themselves worthy stewards of the Empire time and time again. To serve the Komnenian line is to serve the Empire in my mind. But all is not lost if a dark day comes when an emperor of a different line sits the throne and we cannot reclaim it for the Komnenoi. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Caustic Soda posted:
But that is just it. You don't use your influence to deny stupidity. There is not one instance in the annals of our great institution since the founding of the modern party system of the New Byzantines collectively opposing a given measure. You are formulated in a manner akin to the German empire: Several minor groups claiming the dignity of the overarching authority when it seems useful, but otherwise following their own desires. You have no unity except a pretty flag, and that does not make for a strong, viable party. Do not be blinded by your ideal: Look at what your party actually is, what it has actually done, what it actually is composed of. You have become the counterpoint not to the Old Romans, but to the Discordians: A clearing-house for sub-parties which either have a generally positive agenda or who deliberately blow with the strongest wind. This is a grave disservice to the party you want the New Byzantines to be, to the party you believe they should be. Your voice is lost in a sea of mediocrity and ambivalence, of agendaless savants and those who concur with everyone. To save the New Byzantine ideal you hold dear, the current mockery of an institution needs to end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
OOC: Basically the New Byzantines are a modern day Western political party. They claim they have principles but really they'll just go with whatever is popular at the moment, in an effort to create as large a voting bloc as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
OOC: @JT Jag: Pretty much, yeah. Which is just fine by me. @AJ_Impy: I, uh, can't think of anything good to say to that. Let's just pretend I said something unconvincing, yes? While I'm OOC, if any of you other readers find this back-and-forth tiresome, just say so and I'll cut back a bit. I've been having a lot of fun soapboxing so far, but I wouldn't want to become as tiresome as "pretty borders !!11!" or flagchat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
You misunderstand, we prevent bad decisions by being kingmakers. We stop the empire from falling into ruin by generating and supporting proposals that will strengthen it, without being blinded by ideology. We do not need to actively oppose ruinous and spurious proposals, if we can merely defeat them by throwing our support behind the more reasonable ones. And as for you, my fellow Senators. Perhaps we are nothing more then a federation of small voices. But to you I say, you forget your history. Remember the Fasces, that ancient symbol of authority. A bundle of small sticks comes together to form a mighty instrument of authority. And you ask of us, what have we done? We have reclaimed vast tracks of the empire, built great cities and stood down all invaders. To you Milavians, I say, I personally advocated for the restoration of the pentarchs, a move now half-complete? And to you Old Romans, was it not my bill that lead us to regain half of Italy in one grand assault? As for the Kommenians, I too have nothing but love for our Imperial line, on this I swear by the name of my fathers and my mothers! But now you ask, what are we composed of? The reasonable many, who but desire the strength of the empire above all else. Our diversity is not a weakness but a strength! And if I could, I would rename us the Fascists just to make a point to you and put an end to this insufferable "oh, but what does it mean" that the senate has become so insistent on and to exemplify our greatest strengths of both pragmatism and diversity. NewMars fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
Reinvigorating a plot to take Genoa and seize the money to further causes inside the empire. ## Conquest of Genoa act Seize Genoa with troops and bring it into the empire. I think we should also draw up a plan for militarization of the Byzantine empire, we need soldiers not levies! ## Imperial Mobilization act Build barracks in the best provinces the emperor deems fit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
It is not yet the time to make proposals, senator. Seeing as the New Byzantines are going through a small crisis of confidence, I would like to make a suggestion: Considering its massive popularity following the results of the last session I suggest the transformation of the Phanariote faction into a proper party. The Phanariote platform would be: 1. The promotion of scholarly education of the Imperial line and the most important vassals of the empire. 2. The founding and expansion of universities across our realm as centres of knowledge and learning. 3. The construction of more churches across the Empire, as the church provides the greatest opportunities for our lesser-born subjects to receive an education at all. 4. Regarding religious and cultural matters, tolerance as a guiding principle; more cultures and more religions provide us with more ways to do things and more perspectives through which we may learn to do things. At the same time, 5. Eastern Orthodoxy should remain the banner under which all other faiths are tolerated, and the conversion of pagan lords to it should be sought in order to establish the friendly relations necessary for us to learn from each other in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
I have been an Old Roman from the Beginning, and will remain one now ## I second any bill regarding the conquest of the Italian Pensinsula I would also like to suggest Imperial Policy regard expanding to create a new border along the Danube River Emperor Trajan? This name has special meaning. It was under the Emperor Trajan in 117AD that our empire looked like this:  This is the quintessential Old Roman policy, the culmination of all Old Roman policies. The restoration of these borders, and then onwards to extended them further. Also to fan the flames of discussion, if the Emperor isn't secretly an Old Roman, then why is the Imperial Flag our party's symbol? 
Horsebanger fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
Jesus, how on earth does one even manage to rebuild the Roman Empire in CKII? In my game as the Byzantine Empire, the Empire at my height was France, most of the HRE, Hungary to Romania, Armenia down to Syria and Tunisia to Western Egypt. A fair chunk of the Empire but it's slowly falling apart as rebellions and periodic invasions take their toll. I could probably reclaim France + England, but the Middle East and Spain would be all but impossible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
Caustic Soda posted:something unconvincing I remain unconvinced. Dissolution is the only way to regain what your party should be. YF-23 posted:
As a Phanariote since the establishment of the cross-party initiative and as a staunch Milvian I disagree with this proposal. The cross-party factions exemplify positive traits rather than agendas: A strong military, an expansive foreign policy, the advancement of knowledge. These are broad, beneficial categories which no one party can lay claim to, with Phanariotes of every major party coming together on common ground whilst still holding true to their distinct ideological principles. I support spreading the light of knowledge far and wide, but within a Milvian context: My Old Roman Phanariote colleagues likewise favour knowledge within their focus of history and regaining what was once ours. Trying to lump us all together will split the Phanariotes into those faithful to ideology and those devoted primarily to knowledge, whilst denying both sides the ability to fully support the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:OOC: Basically the New Byzantines are a modern day Western political party. They claim they have principles but really they'll just go with whatever is popular at the moment, in an effort to create as large a voting bloc as possible. The party probably won't have concrete political goals outside of building stuff until EU4 and beyond.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:Jesus, how on earth does one even manage to rebuild the Roman Empire in CKII? You need complete control over these duchies: Latium, Venice, Ferrera, Sicily, Genoa, Capua, Apulia, Thrace, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Athens, Tunis and Croatia. So we're actually a decent way there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
Speaking as the one that seems to have been the catalyst for this recent discussion, I would definitely agree with a split of the New Byzantines. Perhaps under the banner of the Inclusionists I would find a more unified platform I can go along with. Anybody in the Senate have artist connections to draw up the iconography of those two new factions? Because I certainly don't.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
I would certainly be amongst the first to take on the mantle of the Pragmatists, and indeed propose its creation as a sub-party of the New Byzantines until such a time as it gains enough clout to be considered to be a full party, barring such an incident as a formal dissolution of the New Byzantines. I, however, lack the skills or connections to create a proper icon for the new sub-party, but humbly beseech those who have such skills to create one for its usage. The Pragmatists believe in doing whatever is necessary for the enduring strength of the Empire. Symbolic victories are less important than real gains in territory, infrastructure that provides legitimate advantages in the field of battle are favored over vanity projects, and we support the use of religion as a unifying force to promote stability.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
I am happy to finally join this august body properly. I believe my beliefs are best aligned with the Fraternalists, and, of course, the Milvians which are currently part of. Unless the noble dynasty of Scruffles were to return to power. Do you suppose the people of Naxos would object to a Doux Scruffles? Something to consider!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:
Arshak I Qutuzid It is sad to split from my fellow senators, but I must agree with Senator McD. While it is true my father supported, and even proposed, such pragmatic and turn-coat behaviour, I find myself a more sensible man, and a more proper Byzantine citizen. The conquest of Rome doesn't change anything. The Germans conquered Rome, and they have styled themselves Romans for almost 400 years. And we are suddenly calling ourself Romans because of the same thing? The conquest of a glorified pile of marble far from the Greek and Anatolian heartland? While true, we never sacked the city itself, we still figuratively drove their holy leader before us. I for one don't care much for such behaviour. The restoration of the Patriarch of Rome is just a small step to forgiveness, but is still a step in the right direction. And to the current Senator Sandwich I can only say this: You are a disgrace to your linage. You call your uncle a bore, when all he ever did was fearing for his people. Our people. And rightly so I might add. Unlike the murderous dogs that you all are he only wanted an empire where every man and woman could feel safe, protected by the Basileus. He, like myself, care not for expansion just for the sake of expansion, or for the sake of gain. I only want the people there to feel safe. Call me a naive idealist, I don't care. I'll even support the notion. Unlike the rest of you however I can look upon the face of Our Lord and say I felt sickened by what was done, apparently in his name. (OOC: The biggest problem in the New Byzantine banner is that everything we could've stood for, that the Qutuzids still stand for, is something that goes against the mechanics of CK2, not to mention EU4. Both systems more or less punish you for having inhomogeneous empires, and thus the support of minorities in a way goes against the game itself. That, I think, is why we have turned into such Pragmatists over the last 100(?) years. The simple lack of anything better to do with our votes. I tried to follow in the old tracks with the Tri-Linguality Act, but everybody was stuck so far up the Rome bandwagon by that point that I couldn't really do anything. And even more so, the support of Universities and Studies as proposed by the Phanariotes and the tolerance as proposed by the New Byzantines would have done so much more IRL than it does in the game, because no matter how good it is it's still a glorified war-game. It have to have mechanics to support this or it is done for.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
So, like? My dad sent me to take his seat in here, kay? And he sent this letter to be read? Hey, announcer dude, read this. quote:To the Honorable Gentlemen and Ladies of the Senate: Anyway, the old man sent me, and I'm here to vote on things. So, like, I don't really know whether or not I like the whole question of splitting the En Bees until I get to see some flag samples, right? Also, when's the after-party? Oh, hey, a dog. Good doggie! Have a fishie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
(OOC talk) I am cool with the split the New Byzantines idea, honestly, but whether they're split or they're kept as one large bloc I'd like to see them actually stand for something; as it stands they're basically the "not the other three parties" party and that's... dull! In terms of the game mechanics of CK2, there are processes to follow for the Old Roman policies (angle for the Restore the Roman Empire decision, conquer more territory) and the Milvian policies (angle for the Restore the Patriarchy decision, convert heathens), and the Komnenian position can be reasonably interpreted as 'let Rincewind play the game the way Rincewind wants to play the game,' but by and large there's no corresponding mechanics-specific methodology for a New Byzantine position, save for 'make more merchant republics' or 'build Universities,' which are - sadly! - not represented in a very interesting fashion. I would argue that for any New Byzantine platform, or the platform of any New Byzantine successor party, we should start by figuring out what goals the party's membership wants to see achieved in-game, and then build the party ideology backwards from there - that way Rincewind has something to aim for, and the rest of us have something to argue about. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 16:59
|
|