BirdNES 3 Survey

[Symphony D.]

It managed to feed its population, grow more or less every major cash crop on the Islands themselves without having to go overseas to obtain them, and managed to maintain independence despite various other powers knocking at the door. I'd say they did pretty well for themselves.

Intrude: After the Sengoku Jidai, it managed to avoid being noticed. That is also 110 years after the period in question and frought with the same dangerous stagnation and willful backwardness I described, and they were only raised from such malaise by the visible shock of Western military supremacy. Though you could say that's neither here nor there for the first reason--it comes much later. Let us shelve Japan's later complacency and turn to the matter at hand since we can both agree it can wind up in at least a stable situation after the fact.

All of the problems you mention are solved eventually, which is the point I was making. No one's arguing that Japan's necessarily doing well during the time period. I'm arguing that it's on a parity, which is actually a rather low standard, especially given that Europe was at the time tearing itself to pieces bit by bloody bit.

It's in a 130 year civil war with a complete breakdown of government and military order, a large breakdown in social and class order (ronin, gekokujo, etc), routine economic and ecological devastation (war, famine, disease, deforestation, etc) to the point where entire philosophical schools of Buddhism are built around the idea that you have to go to another plane of existence entirely to ascend because the world is so polluted, and you're telling me it has parity with Europe? It might achieve parity later with Europe, but not for, if the historical record is any indication, 52 turns, assuming five years per turn. With a week per turn in real life, that's a real-time year.

Moreover, as the problems were indeed solved eventually (mostly through far-sighted government interventionism and massive silver mining), we can see that Japan did indeed have the potential to match European powers. This is what I've been arguing with Bird: potential.

Potential much later. That the war ended when it did is mostly by the grace and skill of the sequential-triumvirate of Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa. There is again very little ensuring they or ones like them arise other than statistical probability for some given time. In fact you could say Japan was relatively lucky with what it got. To believe it would get luckier is possible... but highly unlikely.

 

[Birdjaguar]

BS. The "what if?"s of history help illustrate historical episodes and give them much more depth. Professional historians use them all the time. To call them worthless is really not at all valid.

I enjoy a good "what if" as much as you, but I see them as separate from history. They are an indulgence of our imagination and a tool to challenge our thinking, but I don't see any real contribution to our understanding of did happen. "If China had had an IR, how would the world have been different?" is not the same question as "Why didn't China have an IR?"

See, that's the problem. That supposition that Europe was inevitably going to start the Industrial Revolution and that other nations had to "catch up". That was only true by 1700, it certainly wasn't true in 1600, and it would be a blatant lie in the time period you're setting your NES in.

Which was largely a matter of luck.

I don't think luck had anything to do with it. And I presuppose that the IR will happen, because it actually did. The IR did not begin in the 1700s, it only manifested then after 200 years of pre IR effort and change. In a game though, that is not necessarily going to happen. See Spain in BirdNES 1 for an example of how players are free to change history. In a game, Ihave to be prepared that history will unfold as it did in reality and at the same time be prepared to allow players to change that script. My whole tech tree was a way for me to organize the steps to both recreate history and to create a path for history to be written differently.

If this were an alt history thread and you wanted to change when and where the IR took place, what would the POD be? Would it be in 1675 or 1700? or would you have to go further back? You might have to go back prior to 1450 and keep the Ottoman Turks from becoming a Middle Eastern power.

And I refer you to the fact that China was more prosperous for the vast majority of its history. Sure, the Industrial Revolution happened in Europe, but it's insane to base all historical understanding on one event.

I'm not basing all modern history understanding on a single event. If you had to pick the five most important events of world history in the past 1000 years, what would they be?

 

[Masada]

Why are we even talking about per-capita wealth here? Its like arguing that on average my mud brick house is slightly better than on average your mud and brick house, it's largely irrelevant. Now per-capita productivity is a better measure, but even then its fairly meaningless, because you are talking about almost irrelevant gains. I'm not going to mention the error margin on those measurements either...

The rise of Europe was as much a result of geographic accident, military coercion brilliant individuals, and sheer luck as of innate technological superiority, and it wasn't at all due to some sort of proto-Capitalist system that was in place (as I mentioned, China had similar institutions in place). I want that to be reflected somehow.

I'll grant you that China had similar institutions, however the focus was slightly different. The financial sector was different big scale privately sourced funding of projects almost never happened in China, it did in Europe. By contrast the Chinese system serviced more people, and served a far broader socio-economic base, Europe aside from the Dutch did not. It's quite possible that this did provide a significant disadvantage, China never came up with a bond's system, or a significantly developed insurance system [not talking institutionally here, more the mathematical and practical side] nor did they have quite the same high returns games that Europe did [I should find that paper again, but it noted that for a unit of capital invested in a series of different investments in China yielded on average significantly lower than Europe] but then for a long period nobody in Europe a couple of curve beaters aside had those institutions in place or requisite technical knowledge. Property rights in China were broadly similar, I don't think they provided a significant difference. Market wise China was fractured [geography], national unity notwithstanding, Europe was probably more so though.

Even then, though, Asians weren't all that far behind in the economic sphere. China still probably led Europe in per capita income IIRC until the late 1700s, while the Mughals were richer by far than any European nation, or several of them put together.

Granted, but per capita income doesn't really matter all that much, not when your still locked in by Malthus and still reduced to comparing similarly dingy huts. I'll also grant that the Mughals were richer by far, but since when did wealth count all that much? A certain lack of critical infrastructure, and of requisite institutions really made that wealth inert.

I disagree. Europe's poitical fragmentation (versus China's long standard of unity) fostered a freer market economy in which the money followed profit and locations where such endeavors were more favored. War and the preparartion for war became a profitable business not controlled by the government. That economic model and military expertise was exported via naval superiority. The European trading companies were all about profit and did what ever they had to to keep those profits flowing.

I doubt Europe's fragmentation fostered a freer market, you still end up with all the nice things that European nations prohibited and regulated, the French calico laws, the British corn laws, etc. Europe was more restrictive, protectionist, mercantilist and regulated that China could ever have aspired to be. If anything it led to a separation and decoupling of more than a few European nations from the international trade market, sure it had good results, but those were not the result of free market capitalism per say.

The market economy, credit, money mobility -- they were all there

Correct but they were focused differently.

That supposition that Europe was inevitably going to start the Industrial Revolution and that other nations had to "catch up". That was only true by 1700, it certainly wasn't true in 1600, and it would be a blatant lie in the time period you're setting your NES in.

I tend to agree, Europe's domination over Asia was more of a series of historical accidents than anything inherently better.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I would love to join! But I have some problems with some of the things brought up.

I'll bring other stuff up when they come up

Time to speak up and be heard.

 

[Disenfrancised]

As for cheap energy sources: maybe I'm missing something, but China has a hell of a lot of coal...

It does have huuuge deposits, deposits that are of generally of lower grade, further from the coast and population centres, and much harder to access than the European deposits that the early IR used (India is even worse off with regard to early accessibility, though a very different politcal/demographic set up could change this it needed much earlier PoD).

But before the coal stage is even reached, China doesn't have the lots of quick growing forests and fast following streams next to the coastal population centres that provided the energy sources allowed europe to get to a stage where coal looks like a good idea - the development will be slower due to greater transport costs.

As to the better agricultural productivity gives more advantage than it seems due to transport and concentration of gains - if you have a city at the centre of a circular 'feeding' region with a 10000 farms, each which gives 0.5 extra persons worth of food allowing a city population of 5000 and thanks to wealth making interactions an output of 5500 (x^1.1 as an illustrative handwave), a 10% increase in land productivity will allow a city of 5500 with a wealth output of 6050.

Plus IMO europe had better than 10% greater productivity per capita; the 200k strong city of london was supported by the produce of a mere 5 million people in 1600, whilst China took the Grand Canal to feed only 4 times that number in Beijing.

 

[The Strategos]

Yes, I hope to expand his [the Pope's] role and influences. Your ideas on what to include are welcome.

The natural place to begin is in the life of Pope Alexander VI, who was elected at roughly the same time the NES starts in the conclave starting on August 6th (the conclave itself is instructive on the position of pope at this time; note especially the allegations of simony).

As you can see from these two examples, the sale/gift of bishoprics, abbeys, castles, other church lands (and more importantly their income), and indulgences (especially in jubilee years from pilgrims); the appointment of cardinalship (see for example how in the Italian wars he managed to conduct an alliance with France in exchange for the bishop of Saint-Malo becoming a cardinal); and confiscation of enemy wealth were main sources of income and power for the Popes at this time, and also the main source of contention with outside powers. It was the disposition of church lands, for example, that brought conflict with Ferdinand I of Naples (which later helped to lead to the Italian Wars).

The spiritual authority of the pope was acknowledged only when it benefited the parties to acknowledge it (see for example, Spain’s acceptance in order for favorable terms in the Bulls of Donation, the French concessions in order to obtain a marriage annulment for the king, or my personal favorite papal tactic of all time, the multiple calls for crusades which were given in order to mask the mobilization and march of armies fighting in the Italian Wars, compared to Ferdinand’s continued support of Cardinal della Rovere even after Alexander’s election).

 

[Birdjaguar]

Nice links and very interesting. Given all that how can we incorparate such intrigues into a game? Certainly the Pope needs sources of income and the ability to manage armies., but he also needs a reservoir of power to wield over the other players ho will be kings and such. The power has be real (in game terms) so as not to be completely ignored. I've planned to vaguely model "church lands" that will have some value as income and be suitable for confiscation or gifting. Perhaps a way is needed to "punish" defiance of papal authority either through instability, national confidence, economic weakening or loss of support from nobles. The Popes of the time did have clout with kings that in game terms is difficult to mimmick because players do not have loyalties tot he church.

Now, maybe loyalty to the church could be tracked in some fashion that in the end can lead to a nation slipping into protestantism. i am open to ideas in all this especially if there is a way to have political loyalty by important groups (nobles, generals, land owners, etc.) be similarly tracked. That way a single method could be used differently in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

 

[qoou]

I unfortunately cannot access the forums on weekdays (boarding school + internet blocks), but I am still interested in BirdNES 3. Could I still take a non-nation role?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I unfortunately cannot access the forums on weekdays (boarding school + internet blocks), but I am still interested in BirdNES 3. Could I still take a non-nation role?

This is only a discussion thread about some of the ideas I have for the game. It is not a reservation thread and no list of nations has been decided or posted. You thoughts on any of the ideas posted are welcome, as well as, any new ideas you might have.

I do not anticipate this game actually starting until Jan-Feb 2009.

 

[The Strategos]

Nice links and very interesting. Given all that how can we incorporate such intrigues into a game? Certainly the Pope needs sources of income and the ability to manage armies., but he also needs a reservoir of power to wield over the other players ho will be kings and such. The power has be real (in game terms) so as not to be completely ignored. I've planned to vaguely model "church lands" that will have some value as income and be suitable for confiscation or gifting. Perhaps a way is needed to "punish" defiance of papal authority either through instability, national confidence, economic weakening or loss of support from nobles. The Popes of the time did have clout with kings that in game terms is difficult to mimic because players do not have loyalties tot he church.

Now, maybe loyalty to the church could be tracked in some fashion that in the end can lead to a nation slipping into Protestantism. I am open to ideas in all this especially if there is a way to have political loyalty by important groups (nobles, generals, land owners, etc.) be similarly tracked. That way a single method could be used differently in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

Well it might be helpful to say exactly what the Pope’s powers are, and how they affected things historically. Using that as a basis, it could then be brainstormed how to represent these things in a game. A non-exhaustive list would include:

1) Excommunication: An act whereby someone is banned from participating in the sacraments, except for the sacrament of reconciliation, or participating in the liturgy in a ministerial capacity. In some cases, though not always, absolves subjects from obeying ruler excommunicated (such as in Regnans in Excelsis).
2) Interdict: An act whereby the church suspends all public worship and withdraws the church’s sacraments in an entire area, such as a city or country.
3) Appoint of church officials: A source of money if the offices are sold, also a source of political power in some parts of Europe as certain church offices overlapped with secular offices and powers.
4) Papal Bulls: Formal public communication. Countries listened to the bull as they wished, for example, the bull Inter caetera was virtually ignored by France and England.
5) Give annulments and divorces: A fairly powerful tool in some instances, as if a wife was barren, only an official annulment/divorce would allow for a sovereign to remarry and thus produce an heir.
6) Rights as secular ruler over Papal States
7) Prerogative to crown Holy Roman Emperor
8) Sole authority to announce a crusade
9) Right to establish and dissolve religious order, and in some cases had sole oversight over religious order
10) Oversees church finances


So in a NES when the Pope says A and King of France opposes, what choices should the Pope have to enforce his will? Basically, I see two ways: promise of gain or threat of punishment. The promise of gain would include 3, 4 (in some instance such as Inter caetera), 5, 10, and perhaps in certain cases 8 and 9. The threat of punishment would be 1, 2, 6 (military force), and in some cases 4.

Under promise of gain, 5 should be ignored, for as much as I would like seeing it, it is unlikely that NESes will have that kind of detail where marriage and annulments would have a big effect. 4, 8, 9, and 10 are in minimal ways already built into most NESes. That leaves 3 as the most logical expansion for Papal powers in NESes, though again, it might be too much detail for most NESes to handle.

Under threats 6 is already in most NESes, which leaves 1, 2, and 4. Historically 4 has been the weakest threat, see, for example the papal bull Scimus Fili, which condemned the 1296 English invasion of Scotland, and which had no impact in England (though perhaps one could argue in strengthened resistance in Scotland and made France more willing to intervene). Thus the question becomes, if 1 or 2 are actually carried out, what its affects should be. Effects that fall outside the moderator’s purview would include an increased likelihood of foreign intervention (such as the Spanish Armada as a result of Regnans in Excelsis, though on the opposite side, see the French King Philippe II’s unwillingness to act against the previously excommunicated Catharism nobles until a crusade was called). Effects that fall inside the moderator’s purview would include an increased likelihood of dissident groups to increase their dissidence. For example, when the Holy Roman Emperor Gregory VII was excommunicated the German aristocracy launched a rebellion (though the fact that they were already dissident is shown by their second rebellion, the Great Saxon Revolt, which started after the excommunication of Gregory VII had been lifted). On the opposite side, Elizabeth of England, when she was excommunicated, acted so harshly to squash potential traitors, that those dissident groups that would theoretically increase their dissidence were already dead, in prison, or exiled. In my opinion, then, it is not that there is a rule “upon excommunication dissidence will rise x%” but rather “upon excommunication pre-existing rivals and dissident groups will take advantage of the excommunication in order to increase in strength, and perhaps act.”

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thanks, I will mull this over and try to boil it down to game terms and then post.

 

[qoou]

This is only a discussion thread about some of the ideas I have for the game. It is not a reservation thread and no list of nations has been decided or posted. You thoughts on any of the ideas posted are welcome, as well as, any new ideas you might have.

I do not anticipate this game actually starting until Jan-Feb 2009.

Sorry, I just wanted to make sure if I could eventually join (since having to check your e-mail rather than your PM box for my orders, etc could be quite a hassle), and I didn't have time to be particularly constructive that day.

In my opinion, making sure that your reworking of the world won't cause strange wind currents will be extremely hard. For example, if your reworking of Southern Africa causes wind currents in West Africa to allow, rather than prohibit, maritime trade, we could see a very different West Africa, North Africa, and even Iberia (the one in Europe, not the one in the Caucasus). Also, messing with the Polynesians' geography could produce interesting results in Madagascar and the Pacific. (sorry, I once again seem to be too short on time)

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well it might be helpful to say exactly what the Pope’s powers are, and how they affected things historically. Using that as a basis, it could then be brainstormed how to represent these things in a game. A non-exhaustive list would include:

1) Excommunication: An act whereby someone is banned from participating in the sacraments, except for the sacrament of reconciliation, or participating in the liturgy in a ministerial capacity. In some cases, though not always, absolves subjects from obeying ruler excommunicated (such as in Regnans in Excelsis).
2) Interdict: An act whereby the church suspends all public worship and withdraws the church’s sacraments in an entire area, such as a city or country.
3) Appoint of church officials: A source of money if the offices are sold, also a source of political power in some parts of Europe as certain church offices overlapped with secular offices and powers.
4) Papal Bulls: Formal public communication. Countries listened to the bull as they wished, for example, the bull Inter caetera was virtually ignored by France and England.
5) Give annulments and divorces: A fairly powerful tool in some instances, as if a wife was barren, only an official annulment/divorce would allow for a sovereign to remarry and thus produce an heir.
6) Rights as secular ruler over Papal States
7) Prerogative to crown Holy Roman Emperor
8) Sole authority to announce a crusade
9) Right to establish and dissolve religious order, and in some cases had sole oversight over religious order
10) Oversees church finances


So in a NES when the Pope says A and King of France opposes, what choices should the Pope have to enforce his will? Basically, I see two ways: promise of gain or threat of punishment. The promise of gain would include 3, 4 (in some instance such as Inter caetera), 5, 10, and perhaps in certain cases 8 and 9. The threat of punishment would be 1, 2, 6 (military force), and in some cases 4.

Under promise of gain, 5 should be ignored, for as much as I would like seeing it, it is unlikely that NESes will have that kind of detail where marriage and annulments would have a big effect. 4, 8, 9, and 10 are in minimal ways already built into most NESes. That leaves 3 as the most logical expansion for Papal powers in NESes, though again, it might be too much detail for most NESes to handle.

Under threats 6 is already in most NESes, which leaves 1, 2, and 4. Historically 4 has been the weakest threat, see, for example the papal bull Scimus Fili, which condemned the 1296 English invasion of Scotland, and which had no impact in England (though perhaps one could argue in strengthened resistance in Scotland and made France more willing to intervene). Thus the question becomes, if 1 or 2 are actually carried out, what its affects should be. Effects that fall outside the moderator’s purview would include an increased likelihood of foreign intervention (such as the Spanish Armada as a result of Regnans in Excelsis, though on the opposite side, see the French King Philippe II’s unwillingness to act against the previously excommunicated Catharism nobles until a crusade was called). Effects that fall inside the moderator’s purview would include an increased likelihood of dissident groups to increase their dissidence. For example, when the Holy Roman Emperor Gregory VII was excommunicated the German aristocracy launched a rebellion (though the fact that they were already dissident is shown by their second rebellion, the Great Saxon Revolt, which started after the excommunication of Gregory VII had been lifted). On the opposite side, Elizabeth of England, when she was excommunicated, acted so harshly to squash potential traitors, that those dissident groups that would theoretically increase their dissidence were already dead, in prison, or exiled. In my opinion, then, it is not that there is a rule “upon excommunication dissidence will rise x%” but rather “upon excommunication pre-existing rivals and dissident groups will take advantage of the excommunication in order to increase in strength, and perhaps act.”

I like your ideas and have a first pass at working them into the rules.

I see the Pope being able to influence kings with money and perhaps lands and the ability to call for crusades. Now if the Pope asks and a catholic king refuses I’m thinking that such refusal might affect one or more sliding scales that show the likelihood of internal problems: political dissent, religious dissent and peasant unrest. In addition, should a Pope excommunicate a king, then, perhaps he would call a crusade against said king forcing other kings to go to war against the heretic. If they don’t, then trouble would spread and well….

The dissent scales would also work outside of Europe where political factions or peasants often caused problems for rulers. In India, the Hindu-Muslim conflict could be tracked too. Of course, those same scales could be influenced by other forces or other nation's gold.

Each scale might run from 0 to 10 with a score less than 2 or 3 meaning revolution or coup d'etat is in the air.

Your thoughts? Ideas? Improvements?

 

[das]

Now if the Pope asks and a catholic king refuses I’m thinking that such refusal might affect one or more sliding scales that show the likelihood of internal problems: political dissent, religious dissent and peasant unrest.

I think the Strategos put it better: it would indeed lead to the activisation of extant dissent rather than rise in general dissent, though the latter will likely also occur (especially among the clergy; the peasants are usually removed from such matters except in times of crisis when they too are eager to find a cause). For example: the King of France has been cautiously and gradually setting up a centralised state and curbing the privileges of the nobles. The nobles are not happy but are forced to make compromises. If the king is excommunicated, the nobles get a very good cause to launch a coup d'etat or at least a rebellion, and probably would at least try to do so. Foreign enemies also get a nice excuse, ofcourse.

In general, this is something I really hope to implement in IANES, but would also like to see more of in general: internal political struggles and balancing acts. Peasant revolts are fun, ofcourse, but what really makes Oriental Despoties for me is the ruthless court intrigues. One of the reasons South-East Asia has never been as powerful in real life as it can be in NESes is that it consists of basic political units that revolve around certain natural political and court centers; therefore any empire-builders there will inevitably have to deal with a very strong regional elite in every sufficiently distant province (nothing impossible, I should think, but a challenge nevertheless). China got eunuchs and mandarins (why didn't anyone ever make a game named Eunuchs and Mandarins? It sounds perfect to me ).

I strongly approve of the scale (I intend to use a similar five-level system with various demographic, economic, cultural and political effects assigned to each level of Stability).

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think the Strategos put it better: it would indeed lead to the activisation of extant dissent rather than rise in general dissent, though the latter will likely also occur (especially among the clergy; the peasants are usually removed from such matters except in times of crisis when they too are eager to find a cause). For example: the King of France has been cautiously and gradually setting up a centralised state and curbing the privileges of the nobles. The nobles are not happy but are forced to make compromises. If the king is excommunicated, the nobles get a very good cause to launch a coup d'etat or at least a rebellion, and probably would at least try to do so. Foreign enemies also get a nice excuse, ofcourse.

In general, this is something I really hope to implement in IANES, but would also like to see more of in general: internal political struggles and balancing acts. Peasant revolts are fun, ofcourse, but what really makes Oriental Despoties for me is the ruthless court intrigues. One of the reasons South-East Asia has never been as powerful in real life as it can be in NESes is that it consists of basic political units that revolve around certain natural political and court centers; therefore any empire-builders there will inevitably have to deal with a very strong regional elite in every sufficiently distant province (nothing impossible, I should think, but a challenge nevertheless). China got eunuchs and mandarins (why didn't anyone ever make a game named Eunuchs and Mandarins? It sounds perfect to me ).

I strongly approve of the scale (I intend to use a similar five-level system with various demographic, economic, cultural and political effects assigned to each level of Stability).

I like the idea of internal intrigues too, but as a mod, if you have 25 players and half of them have some internal "goings on" each turn, then you really have 12 more NPC players to keep track of and which players expect some action. I find that a significant burden to do well. I would like to find a way to handle this better.

None the less, I think trying to track internal dissent its important, especially in an age like 1500 AD. A list of likely "opposition" groups for nations/rregions would be nice have. (hint hint)

With a numeric scale, it is pretty easy to tie policy and spending to effect changes in the level of discontent of several groups. I think you need some kind of generic peasant scale and probably a religious one too. The nobles, mandarins, & eunuchs, however, should be a bit more customized for the location or country. Of course you realize that now we have three NPCs per nation.

All of this ties right back to exactly what kind of government a nation has and its characteristics. And that is another can of worms.

 

[das]

They don't have to be NPCs as such; it's just that, when stability scales call for a rebellion and/or another player tries to jump in as that, he would have to court the support of different segments of society. Ofcourse, ideally there should be at least two NPCs per country (the two-party system is a natural for both court intrigues and parliamentary struggles, even if de jure there is just one party or there is a multitude; often but not quite always you have the Content Elites and the Disgruntled Elites, and their various supporters; naturally, they can change places somewhat often and there can be new elites outside of the system, in which case strange things happen as one extant party could defect to that elite or alternatively a common front could be created between enemies)

 

[Birdjaguar]

They don't have to be NPCs as such; it's just that, when stability scales call for a rebellion and/or another player tries to jump in as that, he would have to court the support of different segments of society. Ofcourse, ideally there should be at least two NPCs per country (the two-party system is a natural for both court intrigues and parliamentary struggles, even if de jure there is just one party or there is a multitude; often but not quite always you have the Content Elites and the Disgruntled Elites, and their various supporters; naturally, they can change places somewhat often and there can be new elites outside of the system, in which case strange things happen as one extant party could defect to that elite or alternatively a common front could be created between enemies)

So games terms, if the type of government was established and the nature of the opposition parties determined we could have scales like this:

China might have:
Eunuchs: Rebellious 0-1-2-3-4-5 Loyal
Mandarins: Rebellious 0-1-2-3-4-5 Loyal
Generals: Rebellious 0-1-2-3-4-5 Loyal
Peasants: Rebellious 0-1-2-3-4-5 Loyal

France:
Nobility: Rebellious 0-1-2-3-4-5 Loyal
Religious Leaders: Rebellious 0-1-2-3-4-5 Loyal
Peasants: Rebellious 0-1-2-3-4-5 Loyal

Perhaps other factions would be needed and each nation could have their own.

 

[das]

That is pretty much it; might also need to point out which elite group currently holds the most sway in the government. Thankfully, there are some basic similarities, especially within regions.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So what groups would be important to include in the world of 1500 AD?

England
Scotland
Denmark
Poland
Germany (HRE)
Italy
Spain
Ottoman Empire
Russia
Mughals
SE Asia
Japan
etc.

 

[sp1023]

Well, Sheep's running an NES about the same time... Persia?

Oh, portugal, definitely!