|
I thought you would be relatively safe since you don't own any of the crusade destinations. Well, so much for that.
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
Wiz posted:quick little rundown of all the kingdoms you can create: No Bohemia? drat you 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:I suppose you now get to name a bunch of new vassals for the conquered lands? If so, will they be loyal or will your bad reputation just make the more knives at the Sultan's throat? Loyalty of lords starts at 100, but can quickly deteriorate depending on personal traits, sovereign's skills, reputation etc. Appointing new counts should somewhat reduce the horrendous reputation Azerbaijan has, so hopefully they won't become a threat immediately.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2011 16:27
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Oh crap. Well... I suppose that the King might have a "hunting accident" and leave the whole mess to his blameless son. I'm afraid that if the king dies, we can look forward to getting the Realm duress event or some other form of civil war / secession chain. Besides, most of the remaining reputation would be inherited.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
Sam. posted:Mongols have semisalic gavelkind, right? If they do, that means we should wait until they get bigger to assassinate the Khan, so it'll be split up into a bunch of feuding Mongol realms. I believe they get it after some time through an event.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2011 18:54
|
|
|
 Well, that was faster than I expected. At least you don't have to worry about vassals anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
The Old World foolishly rejected Muhammad's teachings, it's time to relocate to Iceland so the chosen people of Azerbaijan can establish a new Islamic empire in the Americas as soon as EUIII starts.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
Wiz posted:King of Bohemia holds it, for some reason. He also holds the title to Burgundy. So the strip of land starting above Piedmont and continuing all the way up to the north actually belongs to Bohemia and not Sicily? Yay. Edit: But the Přemyslids are dead already. Huh.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
Hmmm. What did those two regicides do with our reputation levels, then? I'd amateurishly guess we are somewhere around tarnished?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2011 23:22
|
|
|
Kem Rixen posted:Usurping only means they can get a claim on the title, they'd still have to march to the small amount of land we have left and take it from us. Which, clearly, is a possibility. At least I think that's how it works in CK, I can't remember. Yeah, that's true. But I'm fairly certain they are still pagans which means they would have to conquer Syria in order to reach Azerbaijan (you can only march through provinces owned by your brothers in faith, I think). So Wiz is kind of safe in that regard.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
e: Double post, sorry. I'm an idiot.
steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Aug 12, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 00:41
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity - what would happen if the Papal State got annexed? I don't think that happened in any of my Paradox playthroughs, but considering our current Pope is quite weak and surrounded by united Italy, I like to think it's a possibility.Paklid posted:I imagine Andalusia's flag would hearken back to the Caliphate of Cordoba. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Aug 30, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2011 00:42
|
|
|
Proposition Joe posted:I think making flags with backgrounds of traditionally used colors (red, white, green, black) with some national symbols on them (abstract stuff, text, and plants, no animals from what I can gather) would work best. I would say that even such arabesque motives would be too adventurous.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2011 00:54
|
|
|
Garenas posted:Including some sort of Roman influence on Italy's flag would be especially appropriate because they not only hold the greatest number of 'core' classical Roman provinces of any nation, they also have the most significant claim to the city itself. I would say the proximity to the city of Rome is largely irrelevant - even Rome's significance within the Empire wasn't all that great during the final period of the West. Also, there would be no actual direct continuity with the original Roman Empire.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
Proposition Joe posted:More Flags: Really like these, especially the second one - I could see a Muslim state using it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
MadPierrot posted:yeah i think you're underestimating the fact that the flag of Rome is also UGLY. I incorporated it in the first draft of my Italy flag and promptly dropped it because not a single person liked it. I think your flag is really nice and pretty and fits the universe we got right now. The only problem is that its ahistorical nature lets people to sperge about alternatives they find to be more faithful to the non-existant historical reality of the LP.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
Fasces? Those were not exactly a popular sign of medieval Italian states, were they?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
theblastizard posted:If all of Italy was about to be united under one throne in direct defiance of the Pope, I think they would have played up Roman imagery. The thing is, no Italian noble would be mad enough to consider defying the Pope. And even if they did, they would have to deal with the HRE - having the Emperor as the plaintiff.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
I'm actually surprised no one has suggested a variation on either the Venetian or Florentian flags.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
Gladi posted:Bright day Yeah, the province of Sudetenland is way off both geographically and historically and Erz is a stupid name (it should be Erzgebirge, Erz just means ore). But it is hardly a big deal, considering the focus of the LP. Suitable and somewhat recognizable names could be Böhmerwald or Pilsen. Erz might be called Liberec / Reichenberg.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2011 14:43
|
|
|
Asehujiko posted:What happens to the Brotherhood of the Nameless? Do they get to be revolters? Not-protestant new gnostic religion? Not-cathar heretics? Or something more behind the scenes? Where do you think the Illuminati came from? Oh, the Nameless Infants have grown far beyond the petty games you call "politics".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
Drink Cheerwine posted:No, not at all. In fact, one of the fundamental tenets of war is to attack where the enemy isn't. Mr. Clausewitz would like to have a word with you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
Drink Cheerwine posted:I didn't intend for my earlier post to read as "ignore the enemy forces." It is only possible to do so if you are actually determined to fight, if you conduct all your movements in such a fashion that they inevitably lead to a decisive battle (or, more abstractly and widely, to the toppling the centre of gravity of your enemy). Then the opponent may find himself demoralized and willing to surrender before the battle actually commences. So, battle (Schlacht) or moral victory achieved through pure force remains the ultimate goal of war. If you merely promote empty maneuvering around the enemy to your primary war-time strategy, you are no longer a credible threat. That's the fundamental mistake of Sun-Tzu.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:Yes. Very much so. In fact, it is suspiciously bad... (tears off mask) What a twist! Now we just need de Guibert to tell those two hipsters to gently caress off.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Morale victory? That and rout/route is a mistake I regularly see my ostensibly native English speakers make when typing, but I can see either applying in this case. I'm not a native English speaker and I think "moral victory" is close enough to the idea of breaking one's spirit. It goes beyond morale thanks to the complexity of the whole concept as demonstrated in Clausewitz' dialectics (especially when you acknowledge the German intellectual environment of his times, influenced by the likes of Schelling, Fichte or Herder). This might be getting a bit too deraily, though. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Sep 21, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
The thread is becoming self-aware, alert the President!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
B because its the right thing to do. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
Mr. Pumroy posted:For all you people voting for A or B for a progressive nation, aren't those options more suited for aggressive expansion, since it means smoother integration of annexed provinces of differing religions? We must liberate the less progressive from the shackles of their own narrow-mindedness.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:Voting A. Extending tolerance of 'Heathens' before 'Heretics' is a bit unrealistic, and we will have plenty of time before our contact with the Christian world is really extended (whereas it is just a small number of Orthodox provinces for now). Are you proposing to tolerate the same sectarian heretics who killed Ali? Surely you jest!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
MadPierrot posted:I'd say it's more likely for a sultanate to express tolerance to nonbelievers, i.e. Christians and Jews, than to express tolerance for divergent sects of the same overarching faith. The biggest reason being, it's generally better for business; the trade partners of the day are more than likely going to be Christian merchant republics, and historically, at least in Spain, the Jews were highly respected by the Islamic entities due to their great skill in the fields of finance and (if I recall correctly) metalworking. The taxes help, too. Also don't forget that accepting the Sunni faith as equal to Shia Islam would be roughly equivalent to Christians saying "You know what, that Jesus fellow isn't really all that important, and who needs second coming anyways?" And even from the legal point of view, both branches feature distinct concepts of law. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Sep 22, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2011 23:06
|
|
|
Kainser posted:It's less that and more "haha, look at those crazy people thinking that Jesus wasn't very important. Oh well, I guess they are pretty harmless, let's not spend so much money persecuting them" Except those harmless silly people have spent the past few centuries trying to undermine our core beliefs and condemn us as heretics subject to jihad.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:You are so lucky that Akbar didn't exist in this timeline. Ugh, is this a reference to the real life Akbar (who wouldn't be born yet and who wasn't exactly renowned for his tolerance, in fact he was one of the major proponents of the sharia law) or to a LP character I'm not familiar with?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
Allah be praised! Definitely didn't expect such a complete turn of tides. Let our tolerance finally come into play.quote:Why would Muscowy do this? They are stupid Christians, they can't comprehend history is unfolding before their very eyes. Their naive foolishness shall be their downfall. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Oct 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
Yeah, I get what you are trying to say - getting the mil tradition idea would have been better, right? But I'm pretty sure the general assumption amongst the voters (includining me) was we wouldn't actually fight their main forces since the Armenians would be locked in a fight with the Russians and we would just wipe the floor with our manpower sponge. And ultimately, that bet (quite risky, I'll admit) was right. The fact that the Muscowians failed to turn the war into another expansion is a nice unexpected bonus.
steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Oct 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
Wiz posted:4 ports and in our case, 16 naval tech, which is a fair bit away. Even if we were beyond the tech threshold, would there be any colonies within our range? I mean, eastern Africa is obscenely far away since the game calculates naval routes, right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
MadPierrot posted:Ikko-Ikki is really cool but its plutocratic nature would suggest that communists probably wouldn't look to it as a shining example of proletarian equality. Well, we'll have to wait until Victoria to see how that goes, but the alternate history of the Shia - Sunni division that is unfolding before our very eyes is just as interesting. Sadly, I don't think EU models such things as the Wahhabi / Salafi movement...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Maoists seek to bypass the phase of bourgeois domination in capitalist society with a revolution led by the peasantry, and the Soviets broadly speaking succeeded in industrialising a late feudal rural Russia without going through capitalism. Maoism was a smashing success, too. And you seem to confuse Soviet industrial society with socialism. If you are interested, you might want to check out Raymond Aron and his explanation of how the Soviet development undermined Marx' materialist revision of Hegelian theory of rights, law and state. More people should read Hegel so they could understand Marx and how later theories (I'm looking at you, Mao and Lenin) stemming from Marx got him wrong, is what I'm trying to say.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Could you elaborate, preferably emphasising why understanding Hegel is necessary in practice for a Marxist movement? Or is your view that Marxism cannot be thought as "true" without a careful and nuanced applicaton of Hegel into it? I'll see what I can find by Aron. I'll just slip in a short answer so the derail doesn't become too bloated - The one thing I would emphasize is that both Hegel and Marx use models of class-based society. However, Hegel used the existence of classes to justify the state. He believed people were capable of seeing the universal ideas of freedom, good and evil surrounding them, and intuitively strove to protect them in what he called ethical life. Since in the modern, capitalist world, people are forced the leave their families (the source of the primary ethical unity) and become a mass of atomized individuals, a new form of more formal unity came to be - civil society. Hegel's CS is essentially an interactive model of society in which people refine their perceptions of the universal by being in contact with others. This is where modern state comes into place. Its goal is to synthesize the various concrete notions of the universals possessed by the individual classes and factions into one, truly general will and to restore the substantial unity of family on a national scale. Simply said, state is where abstract ideas can get a proper concrete form through the process of lawmaking and executive decisions. Marx, however, insisted that of the various classes, only the factory workers would play a role in the revolutionary struggle (since only they were actual products of the capitalist systems and the lumpenproletariat was a relic of the past - Hegel might have said they were actually too close to the state of pre-modern family based rural life to feel as accute need for rational legislation as the capitalists and labourers and urban population in general) and would impose the dialectic conclusions of their particular predicament upon others. Ie, social dynamics were supposedly driven by material conditions rather than by the esoteric feeling of an unifying, universal spirit discovering itself through human eyes and protecting itself via the ethical state. Then other thinkers came and completely ignored that, turning to the agrarian population of their countries and trying to make them class-conscious. In a sense, they perpetuated the necessity of state as the creator of modern social unity since material factors failed to fulfill this role, both in the West and in the East. The theory of industrialization can be contrasted with this to see how political ideas really dominated over supposed economic determinants, ruining the scientific basis of Marxism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2011 13:00
|
|
|
Rejected Fate posted:Maybe it deals with religious "spirit" by replacing it with an atheistic humanism instead, stating that traditional religious "spirits" frequently splinter due to sect differences? It is mostly a historical product of the times. On one hand, there was Spinoza and his pantheism which translated into the triangular conception of the universal developed by the Naturphilosophie, and later into what would ultimately become Marxism. Then there was European romanticism and Kant with his rationalism and theory of aesthetics which also affected ho people perceived politics. Lastly, there was the incredibly strong influence of of Feuerbach's anthropologizing theories which coincided with the fallout of the two previous points. Seriously, the religious (or rather monotheist) spirit is not something you need to destroy in order to get communist ideology. Anti-religious tendencies were just fashionable at the time our communism developed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
Triskelli posted:I was just thinking about this, and was wondering how easy it would be to add a new mechanic to the mod for the AIs and people that aren't playing in the Western Tech-sphere: National Competition. So you are basically proposing to give bonuses to civil war plagued regions? Besides, I don't think China and Japan are supposed to be capable of becoming imperial powers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2011 00:01
|
|