BirdNES 3: Discussions & Questions

[Terrance888]

No one in this entire thread has suggested we follow history as it was in the history books. And in fact, this has been pointed out. In this thread. In the last couple of pages. You keep bringing the idea up, as though someone's arguing for it. No one is. You're not arguing against anyone. If you could somehow stumble across the point of the discussion in the future and address it, then that would be nice.

Yes, but we have said things like "This would be impossible, no matter what unless something is wrong". How do we view if something is impossible or not? History.

If we did everything historically correct, we arrive at real history with the correct rules and updates. If we didn't, things change and that is that.

So what if England got a 'Economy Score' better than France? What if England had invested in themselves over their thirty years and france didn't? Or maybe the player of Englanded worded his statement so that all actions improves his economy (I do that for trade ). What if we view this in a real life perspective: Is economy what is the economy of the entire nation, or is the economy within the grasp of the Government above the serfs and low lords, with income as the actually money that the power is?

After all, it is just a statistic that represents soemthing (exactly what I have to find out again). Is it the equivilent of GDP? GNP? Perhaps the whole of the economy can't compete, but how about the different parts? England WAS more centralized than France by the terms of size (IIRC France was catching up after the Hundred Years War) from Norman Conquests and perhaps since the beginning of the Dark Ages (Bracing for the burn). Although both of them had periods of centralism and diversiture.

 

[Abaddon]

I think the simple difference in opinions here are degree more than anything else.

I tend to be more towards NK's side but am more willing to allow for some changes, but at the same time as NK said there is no way Bavaria should have the income of France as an example. While for Abaddon this would be acceptable.

Nk is arguing basically that historical limitations/realities (so annoying to find the right word for what I have in mind) be kept but the actual results and actions can be changed. While Abaddon is arguing essentially that any change can be made.

Thank you Adrogans!

If your actions are limited by history, whats the point? How limited? Could France make some horrible, horrible decisions and be conquered by England, or should that be stopped because of historical inaccuracy? How many years of slow divergance before it is allowed? 5, 50, 500? ???

It is such a grey area and I am on the side where history shouldn't limit, NK (and others) is on the other side. Beej is the mod and has to stand somewhere in this grey fog. I pity his role!

diversiture.

Lolwut? Charles? I thought we had got past this kinda wordplay by now

 

[Kraznaya]

Yes, keep constructing strawmen of what historical limitations really means.

For what it's worth, you can read a recent Dachs alt-hist timeline and experience an enormous magnitude of change from OTL history, within the bounds of historical limitations.

 

[Adrogans]

But the actions are not limited by history, simply if you start at point A then things, in this case Economy is being discussed, need to be realistic to that moment.

What a player does with this setup is not predetermined. What if Spain and England were friends in this NES there history changed without changing the economy with a simple decision.

But how much can England grow is what they are arguing. Not what decisions England is making.

 

[Abaddon]

ninidjnlkjdafh

 

[Ninja Dude]

20+ people all writing orders will not follow logic.

And when logic isn't followed, plans will fail and problems will arise. Or at least, that's how things SHOULD go. There's a difference between doing things difference than how history went, and being illogical.

Edit: What I'm quoting, since Abaddon seems to have edited it away:

It is worth NOTHING. Writing a alt-hist is not NESing. It is useful to create a NES setting, but completely incomparable. Alt's demand logic event to follow logic event. 20+ people all writing orders will not follow logic.

 

[sophie]

So what if England got a 'Economy Score' better than France? What if England had invested in themselves over their thirty years and france didn't? Or maybe the player of Englanded worded his statement so that all actions improves his economy (I do that for trade ). What if we view this in a real life perspective: Is economy what is the economy of the entire nation, or is the economy within the grasp of the Government above the serfs and low lords, with income as the actually money that the power is?

This doesn't matter one bit, because at the end of the day England on its own simply doesn't have the population, geographic location, land size, terrain, and access to resources that France has, and short of colonizing all over the world, never will. This is the point that NK is making. It is quite literally impossible for England in its traditional bounds in the 16th century to match the economic output of France, just as it would be impossible for Scotland or Wales to equal the economic output of England. This is the whole premise of AltHist. You can posit a world in which Wales goes off and conquers England and all of Europe, but at the end of the day, it's not an Althist; it's a mapw***ery. If you want to play a game about England equalling France economically, go ahead, but don't pretend that it's taking place in an historical setting, you have now moved into the realms of fantasy.

 

[Adrogans]

Well you could make an althist where Wales takes control of England, but usually then the Welsh leadership would simply become the English leadership and you would still have England. Bah that came out weird. I mean basically look at the Mongols in China you could do a similar idea to that.

 

[Kraznaya]

Well you could make an althist where Wales takes control of England, but usually then the Welsh leadership would simply become the English leadership and you would still have England. Bah that came out weird. I mean basically look at the Mongols in China you could do a similar idea to that.

He's not talking about the structure of the state, he's talking about the land and people itself.

 

[Adrogans]

Yeah, but I still felt I had to mention a situation like that. For no other reason that it would be amusing to see.

 

[Abaddon]

Yeah, but I still felt I had to mention a situation like that. For no other reason that it would be amusing to see.

Takhisis would be in rapture.

 

[Kraznaya]

The Scots really benefited from the whole James VI deal, didn't they?

 

[Terrance888]

This doesn't matter one bit, because at the end of the day England on its own simply doesn't have the population, geographic location, land size, terrain, and access to resources that France has, and short of colonizing all over the world, never will. This is the point that NK is making. It is quite literally impossible for England in its traditional bounds in the 16th century to match the economic output of France, just as it would be impossible for Scotland or Wales to equal the economic output of England. This is the whole premise of AltHist. You can posit a world in which Wales goes off and conquers England and all of Europe, but at the end of the day, it's not an Althist; it's a mapw***ery. If you want to play a game about England equalling France economically, go ahead, but don't pretend that it's taking place in an historical setting, you have now moved into the realms of fantasy.

Who said england is on its own? :riskingpreciousgameinfo: Would England + colonies + unspeakables increase their economy to a high enough point?

 

[Abaddon]

Charles, I don't think you could Gift England enough gold to make up the difference in Economy, no.

 

[sophie]

Who said england is on its own? :riskingpreciousgameinfo: Would England + colonies + unspeakables increase their economy to a high enough point?

That really would depend on the colonies, among other things.

 

[Terrance888]

:riskmorelookingatimmacforsignaltostop: Not JUST me.

 

[Abaddon]

Shuush Charles. Lets not talk about a game that is still alive like that.

 

[Terrance888]

Fine. Just saying, "England Alone" makes me chuckle like a... well, better censor this as well.

 

[Immaculate]

Please remember that England was much stronger relative to expectation under Kraznaya before i got anywhere near to her. I have improved her but not at rates greater than the average rate of improvement. So if you want to know why England is stronger than expected, ask Kraznaya instead of trying to determine what she is presently doing to strengthen her wealth.


Additionally, why does no one care that Portugal jumped 6000g in one turn? Is no one curious? How does that fit into your discussion?

 

[Kraznaya]

Please remember that England was much stronger relative to expectation under Kraznaya before i got anywhere near to her. I have improved her but not at rates greater than the average rate of improvement. So if you want to know why England is stronger than expected, ask Kraznaya instead of trying to determine what she is presently doing to strengthen her wealth.

I never actually played England; those stats were NPC generated and resultant of the black box's interpretation of Henry VII's reforms.

Additionally, why does no one care that Portugal jumped 6000g in one turn? Is no one curious? How does that fit into your discussion?

Well, the macro-discussion about the plausibility of certain economies being as wealthy as they are is more important than the faults of the black box itself.