CarmenNES04: Seeds of the Earth

Neverwonagame3 said:

Which doesn't contradict what I said. Can we count the point as finished and move on?

Click to expand...

I'm fine with moving on, I'm just noting that it's kind of foolish and unbelievable for nations to be making these kinds of massive deals at this point. The first treaties in our world weren't made until the 13th Century BCE, with the Treaty of Kadesh between Ramesses II of Egypt and the Hatusiliš III Hittite Empire. Keep in mind that both of these nations were long established organizations and superpowers of their time.

Thank you Iggy.

Subscription post; and with that I'd note that I'm unsure whether I should join or not. I'll be lurking for now.

OOC:

I'm fine with moving on, I'm just noting that it's kind of foolish and unbelievable for nations to be making these kinds of massive deals at this point. The first treaties in our world weren't made until the 13th Century BCE, with the Treaty of Kadesh between Ramesses II of Egypt and the Hatusiliš III Hittite Empire. Keep in mind that both of these nations were long established organizations and superpowers of their time.

Click to expand...

Given that you made a parting shot, I think it's okay for me to point out that these kind of agreements are quite common in NESes. (To memory- peace treaty in JalNES, Prussia's deal with Noricum in same, various negotiations in End of Empires III. There are plenty of other examples). I'd obviously like to leave the debate there but you can try to counter if you like...

IC:

The Rise and Fall of the Middle Way:

Part 1: Consolidation and Sucess
After the rule and deposition of King Chobres, the primary focus of the yasulan was on creating a new name for the state- the incident with the League of People/Peoples mix-up could not be allowed to happen again. To a degree anti-nationalism itself lost support, as it was associated with Chobres’s authoritarian policies.

However, a new movement arose (despite their self-perception, the yasulan tended to be fairly united in intellectual trends) towards a degree of autonomy in a Middle Way- Claredite regions would have Claredite noblemen, and Ebrite regions Ebrite noblemen. The King would make laws for both Ebrites and Claredites, but they would be different laws.

Meanwhile, the new State of the Two Races (the new name of the former League of Peoples) was beginning to have a new, predominant fashion- reductions in royal power. The new King, Sempes I of Ebria and the IV of Claredia (a compromise between the two fashions in an attempt to ‘appease the Claredites&#8217, was forced to sign the New Compact, guaranteeing that he would abdicate on the request of the intellectuals, “introduce no arbitrary laws”, and “respect” the autonomy of the “Ebrites and Claredites”.

The nobility had been Chobre’s appointees, although even they were slightly relieved to see him go after his old policies. However, the new policy meant war- what they viewed as their own lands were being redistributed without their consultation or consent. Their choices were to rally to the banner of Chobres (and thus instantly lose the support of the people), or find a new idea to notionally support.

The best choice available appeared to be, ironically, from the intellectuals themselves. Hederes, of the new Claredite yasulan (there were three Claredite ones and three Ebrite ones now, despite the fact Claredites were only 20% of the popultaion), had developed a rationalisation for the previous system in the Brotherhood of Man. Accusations of Chobres-esque policies were a risk, but most noblemen were ignorant of this possibility.

Roughly 75% of the noblility rebelled, claiming that the new measures would perpetuate a permanent divide in the state. Most factions were divided, but while both sides marched with many dissenters in the ranks the army was pro-intellectual and the people pro-nobility. The city slaves and palace guard were also divided, and it showed- clashes between city slave-palace guard alliances ensured the streets ran red with blood.

Ultimately, while the nobility won by proxy in the capital they were defeated in the countryside- about half the noblemen who rejected rebellion actually answered the king's call to arms, and the army would defeat the people at the battle of Kang Hill. Sempes I would die in battle, but despite attempts to spread a rumor the intellectuals killed him it served their purposes- they could elect a new ruler.

For now, the Middle Way ruled...

Why don't we just let the mod decide what happens on his own planet? Like I said I would prefer to wait for update 0 until starting diplomacy because some things can change. This debate is getting a little crazy

NWAG you FAIL. All those agreements have been made after considerable game time, IC, after a war, or something else. Not before the NES has even started!

By all means do it secretly OOC via PM, but please don't pollute the thread with it. It completly ruins the immersion.

1- Why should the fact it's before update 0 matter ICly?
2- It was IC.
3- Have you read the NESes in question?
4- O.K, immersion is a good point.

1. Because you don't even know whats happening. What if in update 0 he plonks a load of NPC nations around you, and in the hills? What if another player joins, chosing that area? Until the game has officially launched, its a waste of time making all these agreements etc. Also, its a FRESH START. Nations (an we barely understand the idea of "nations" would not be so open and organised to hold diplomacy over land they don't even yet control. Now I don't know how you imagine nations to be in a FS, but they are a lot more basic in my imagination than yours (I think).
2. You can't possibly write "5 turns" and it be IN CHARACTER. Really? Has your King asked their King for 5 turns of non agression? What IS 5 turns? Have your nations a history of agression between each other? You could have said something like "Greetings fellow leader, we do not wish agression on your fellow man. We wish to expand our nations? Perhaps we could come to an agreement so that we might avoid conflict? [[AN THIS WOULD BE INDEFINITE]]

NAPS are an artefact of CIV, are their real world examples of people agreeing not to fight for a while? (other than cease fires?) Noone agrees not to fight each other, unless they have been already fighting, and even then. Noone assumes it has an end point.
3. I've played, NESed etc for several years now. I even played in some of those NES, so yes.
4. Agreed.

Abaddon said:

1. Because you don't even know whats happening. What if in update 0 he plonks a load of NPC nations around you, and in the hills? What if another player joins, chosing that area? Until the game has officially launched, its a waste of time making all these agreements etc. Also, its a FRESH START. Nations (an we barely understand the idea of "nations" would not be so open and organised to hold diplomacy over land they don't even yet control. Now I don't know how you imagine nations to be in a FS, but they are a lot more basic in my imagination than yours (I think).
2. You can't possibly write "5 turns" and it be IN CHARACTER. Really? Has your King asked their King for 5 turns of non agression? What IS 5 turns? Have your nations a history of agression between each other? You could have said something like "Greetings fellow leader, we do not wish agression on your fellow man. We wish to expand our nations? Perhaps we could come to an agreement so that we might avoid conflict? [[AN THIS WOULD BE INDEFINITE]]

NAPS are an artefact of CIV, are their real world examples of people agreeing not to fight for a while? (other than cease fires?) Noone agrees not to fight each other, unless they have been already fighting, and even then. Noone assumes it has an end point.
3. I've played, NESed etc for several years now. I even played in some of those NES, so yes.
4. Agreed.

Click to expand...

1- I was betting that was unlikely.
2- Technically true, but there's a Translation Convention point- as we are not speaking in English, "turns" could simply be a translation artifact.
2.5- The Molotov-Rippentrop Pact was a non-agression pact. Additionally, there was the Peace of Callias (Greece-Persia), the Treaty of London (1518, France, England, Holy Roman Empire, the Papacy, Spain, Burgundy and the Netherlands), the Soviet-Polish agression pact, and so on. To be fair, I can't think of a single one that was kept- but we can be more intelligent on that point.
3- Key word: SOME.
4- Point dropped.

1. Id bet otherwise. If we don't get several NPC nations, i'll be sorely dissapointed.
2. If this isn't english, please tell me what language this is!?!
2.5. None of those are "off the cuff" treaties. What I mean is, they are all done in response to period of war. An again, noone have a duration. You make an agreement and it is assumed to last forever. There is no need for nations to sign "naps" since it should be assumed you are non-agressive unless your borders come into contact or war is faught.
3. So?

Carmen, can you contact me when we get some Boreal Forest? I have an idea for a nation, a religion at least, but it contains hibernating bears, which I doubt there is a lot of this sub-tropical area.

@NWAG and Abaddon: Cease and desist immediately. I would rather not have to get heavy handed in Update 0. Abaddon brings up fair points that these types of agreements are not only unrealistic (For this time period), but royally screw up other plans.

@Haseri: I will gladly notify you when such boreal forests are found.

Obeying the order to cease and desist despite disagreement, but how long until an update?

Can't wait for launch

Uhh, is it too late to attempt to join?

No, you can still join, though you might not be in this update.

Oh, alright then. I will wait until the first update is done and then join if that is alright with the Mod.

@Iggy: My approach to stories is that quality trumps quantity, and that bonuses will usually be given for the next update. NWAG3 will get a bonus, but all those smaller stories would be equivalent to one of the longer ones previously posted for example.

Click to expand...

Implication length = quality? COUNT ME IN LET ME JUST WRITE A LONG STRING OF NONSENSE FIRST

flyingchicken said:

Implication length = quality? COUNT ME IN LET ME JUST WRITE A LONG STRING OF NONSENSE FIRST

Click to expand...

Oops, it does seem like I'm saying that.

Let me clarify that length DOES NOT mean its of better quality. My meaning was that those longer stories were of better quality than many short stories, but not because of length alone.

I'll be watching this from the shadows.