Game Preference Poll

[Lord_Iggy]

*imagines a massive and advanced Chinese-esque fleet fleeing from defeat descending upon a primitive European-like cradle*

Yes, things that are totally unrealistic in real life could happen here!

 

[LittleBoots]

Chinese culture has lasted the ages of time eternal How is that a ridiculous lifespan for my countries?

Jewish, Greek, Egyptian, Irish, and Celtiberian, to name a few, stayed relatively constant, some less so, some moreso. Admittedly, Europe changes a lot, but thats been a good thing. But this is a silly (and off topic) discussion, but I will grant that Chinese culture has persisted, more or less, for quite some time. The point is more that it has not continued as a single political entity for as long as most empires in NESes have. And simply copying the culture does not mean that it should reasonably last as long as China. China had the advantage of geography. There, I said it Lets not have an argument If you desire to edify me in the ways of the Middle Kingdoms, PM me. I would love to hear what you have to say.

In any case, the main point is that MOST nations shouldn't last as long they do. Most kings shouldn't be as intelligent as they are.

In my limited thought, I can honestly see how what has been argued would work in favor. Common linguistics, mythologies, cultures, etc would make the Cradle all nice and pretty, put what true good would it do?

Bah. What true good does anything do? Why did Imago have a Past Wars page? Why did Bird have the House of Verner? Because these things are nifty. They give the story life and these connections will do the same. Cultures do not exist in a vacuum and the connections between languages and cultures are fascinating. In short, because they add enjoyment to the game and thats what its all about.

The only thing comming from these "discussions" is a headache and alot of arguements.

I politely disagree, so long as we can act mature. I think that it can work out, even if it takes, like you suggested, smaller groups (which is fine with me).

For instance, take in fact that there will only be three cradles- yet there are an infinite number of cultures that can be developed.

Actually, while there is a very large number of possibilities, only a relative few will come into existance and these relative few should have ties to the other cultures if things are going to have even a semblance of realism. Kingdoms are not monocultural fortresses that stand the test of time forever. There shouldn't be only one asiatic country, or only one greco country. Of course, I think the more we move away from OTL cultures the better, but vague comparisons (especially in regards to appearance) are unavoidable and not really bad.

For instance, you can take Andean, Amazonian, Indian, Chinese, Greek, Celtic, Egyptian, Nubian, Sumer/Urian, Scythian, etc. How in the world is anyone going to succeed in organizing only three Cradles where the majority follow the same (general) religion?

Well, the real world had more than three cradles, but if you want to boil it down to Mesopotamia, China, and Mesoamerica, I think that it all works out. Andeans and Amazonians are related to some extent (if distantly), Celts, Greeks, Egyptians, Sumer, Urian, and Indians all share Indo-European ancestry. I'm not so sure about Scythians and Chinese, but there aren't too many more bases necessary to include every culture that ever existed. A ridiculous number of cultures can be spawned from similar starting points.

And also, who says all culture must originate in the Cradle? I mean, the first ones will, but Steppe cultures from similar areas (I do like the regions idea) can share the same kind of basic group set-up, as can tribal peoples, and whatever else you can think up. I'm not saying we should only have three ethnicities, but that people who start in similar locations should be similar.

What happens when the oddball gets ganged up against in each cradle, know's he'll continue to get ganged upon against, and is in general unhappy with the entire way it went? What about the un-avoidable steppe nations? Will it be thrown into an Asian-istic Cradle just because of associations with otl, or will there be enough divurgence to allow for individualism?

Well, he will have a massive cultural advantage if he survives. He consciously chose to be the oddball. If he wants to be the oddball, and does get discriminated against, I guarantee that if he survives his culture will be strong. As for the Steppe nations, I talked about those above. Essentially... what about them? They aren't part of the Cradle and are a different geographic region with more or less its own history. It would be nice if connections could be figured out (read: made up) afterwards, but they are so different and come in so late (relatively) that it doesn't matter as much. Steppe nations can be distantly related to Asiatic cradles, but, given that its a Steppe nation, it won't be in a Cradle in the first place. The purpose of the Cradle Groups isn't to fit all cultures into, but rather for those cultures starting in close proximity to each other. It affects no one else.

I can understand that the Cradles will nto be entirely based on otl (even through the number of requests for "celtic" lines), but what I'm trying to argue against is the way people will try to rule these discussions iron-fisted.

Have more faith in Bird, at least, to moderate these things. I think we can be mature enough to get it done properly so long as basic rules are agreed to beforehand that cannot be whined about if broken. If people are held to agreeing with the majority decision in the culture group (for instance), they cannot whine when things don't go their way and try to make Bird make accomodations. Of course, again, we aren't talking about hard and fast rules and variation is very much encouraged. Homogeneity is boring, we're simply talking about a similar base point, from which things will immediately diverge. This isn't anything that any reasonable person will consider constricting. But if all the other players want a vaguely African cradle and the odd man out wants a Japanese-y nation, they shouldn't be allowed to have that. It doesn't make any sense.

This is all an experiment (and conjecture) anyway. If Bird wants to do this, he can and it will be fun (hopefully). Those that want to make it work will join and those that don't like it won't. We'll see how it goes. If it fails, then oh well, it was something new to try.

Already there has been discussions of penalties for individualism- since when would creativity be a punishable offence?

I think this is a little bit of an exaggeration. Individualism is highly encouraged. Blatant disregard for some basic guidelines is not.

As a final protest against this, I must point out that no matter what, you will always have an oddball. Rather alex and the asians/ Swiss and his Aztecs*, or Thy and his Valins, cultures will always be unique- and the countries they belong. Cultures, and religions in particular, do not spring up out of the ground as they do in general NESing (I know this goes against what I tend to do). Rather, they're obviously built upon the remnants of previous cultures that rose and fell, and all those cultures you so lovingly pointed out are examples of this.

I don't see how the oddball statement and the "Cultures are related and build upon each other" statement are related. Both also seem to be proving my point.

I am running out of time to address the rest, but fully intend to do so. Let me know what you think, its the only way things progress.

 

[Thlayli]

Cradles aren't static entities, you know. New cradles can easily form as old ones stagnate. Cultural differences will spread as the cradle expands, but conquest and dominant empires within the cradle itself will enforce a certain homogenity. This will in turn lead to uncivilized, defeated, and other fringe groups expanding the edge of the cradle and exploring new areas.

I'm sure that the opening cradle won't be the scene of the world's dominant empires 1,000-2,000 years after the NES begins.

 

[~Darkening~]

I've decided just to reply to the last for now. What I implied was that in OTL, cultures are built upon predasacors. That hasn't been done in NESing, and the person left out will be an oddball.

EDIT: I am aware that more land opens up-however, my point is the starting point. You can't argue that there is plenty of room when the map is still heavily fogged.

 

[Symphony D.]

I wasn't going to say anything, but this whole discussion quite frankly makes it rather plain to me, at least, that almost all the parties involved have no idea (or are not expressing) why the cradle concept even exists when extrapolated from the model of Earth.

Cradles--Mesopotamia, China, Mesoamerica, New Guinea, etc--aren't just happenstance geographical areas. In fact, they should never logically be sparse areas. They are the original areas of high-yield plant and animal domestication for food production. More people means more power. The "cradle" exists because those people got it first locally, and their developments (food production, and subsequent cultural and technological advances) spread outwards from their positions faster than adjacent, less territorially fortunate peoples could independently discover that food production.

So if you're going to approach the concept of the cradle with any sense of realism at all, they're going to be centered on wherever the best domesticable food is, not just willy nilly on the surface. Knowing where those are without just arbitrarily deciding them requires more information. But that's not important to this discussion.

In short, whatever things pop-up first will be fairly similar based on the vagaries of their geography and chance (most shamanistic tribes before the rise of actual centralized power structures share a good deal of similarities no matter where they're located) and, as a result of appearing in the same rough environment, will be reasonably alike to one another. Major differences only really start to arise once this process of domestication is complete and diffusion is occurring all around the cradle, at which point those differences begin to magnify, interact, and create distortion patterns amongst each other.

Then again, if you start early enough, you won't be dealing in something like a "government" anyway, and if you start late enough to be dealing with such things (6000 - 3000 BC analog) then the cradle will be fairly highly diffused anyway (the Mesopotamian "cradle" would be then encompass everything from Iberia to India, realistically), so there's only a moderate need to limit creativity, and then only mostly by geographic proximity to neighbors.

 

[das]

There will be tech advances and at the moment I plan on developing three versions (or a single version that will have chance outcomes) of a tech tree. I expect that it will be secret and players will not know what is possible or how close they are to discovering the next one. I will develop a formula to track each player's progress though. Depending upon exactly how long each turn is, advances will diffuse to neighboring states pretty quickly. War will spread new war tech quickly so a nation's advantage won't last long.

I just hope that player concentration of technology or lack thereof won't affect the scientific breakthroughs themselves greatly. It would be best to have them determined by other factors.

Cradles: The number will be driven by how many players there are.

Hmm? Won't players start joining up after the first cradles appear?

Or will you add more cradles as we go if the original ones are filled but there more players that want to join elsewhere?

Projects: Yes, but results will be decided by mod after it is built. Effects may not be permanent or may be delayed.

I generally approve, but the player too should have some control over the general intended effect. Whether or not that works out, plus the side-effects, is a different matter.

Stats: Leaning strongly towards a "black box" model. I am developing a complicated set of stats and interconnections between stats and national economies. All of it will be hidden from players who will see a pretty short (for me) set of stats that reflect their current situation. Players will tell me how they want to spend, and I will apply it into the model and voila! stats are calculated. At the moment I have about 30 "assumptions" for each nation that I will be able to change and those changes will affect stats. For example, if a player wants to spend EP on military infrastructure, I might change the number of units supported by 1 EP of upkeep. Maybe go from 20 to 25. Or maybe a player wants to tax trade, then I would up the base tax rate on trade enough to create an income effect (and maybe others).

Sounds complicated, but I have confidence that you could work it out. Aside from that it sounds quite good.

Am I the only one who reads the entire update- not just my own section?

Both alex and I had already expressed a similar opinion, so no.

Bird, if you spot anyone shooting straight at another cradle (or even heading directly in the general region)

How the hell is that going to be even feasible? At least if he goes with my suggestion and keeps moving them around to disorient people.

My point is that I'll BE the oddball this time. I'm arguing for general acceptance of multi-cultured Cradles, not themed Cradles. There shouldn't be discussions of stiffling creativity. Now, before this is twisted, I can understand some limits- No Jedis or Hobbits, please. But in general terms, there shouldn't be limits on what can be accepted (nor a person responsible for enforcding it).

a) Frankly both multi-cultural and themed cradles are immensely overrated; it is more an issue of realism, on which we seem to agree.
b) I agree that an angry mob works better than a single enforcer, yes.

das, just because you're an uber-mod doesn't mean everyone else gets their kicks from extreme micromanagement

I am an uber-mod? That title just happens to belong to the very jaguar-bird under discussion, as his post about stats would clearly indicate. So I don't think he'll much mind.

The rest of the rant prior to the next quote is kind of saying the same thing as I said before in different words, so I'll take it as a "yes".

I believe we're saying the same thing in two different ways

That's an understandment.

The only thing I'm set against is penalties against players for being different- this is completely unrealistic. You can not tell me that early kingdoms did not ally with different faiths if it meant the difference in victory and defeat. So there shouldn't be a ganging up against IC-wise, especially if it provides no immediate benefit (there were no bloody crusades/jihads in the 2nd century B.C){as far as I know}.

There used to be a kingdom named Judea, that was, as a matter of fact, very much an "odd-ball" despite the general consensus that the area should be Semitic Polytheistic. Now, it's not as though the Judeans had no allies; alliances of convenience always work out - and the main reason they got attacked so damn often was that they were sitting on an important strategic position. Still, it did cause some diplomatic complications, additional clashes with other Semitic tribes in the area and, in the end, a rather harsh occupation policy due to the apparent impossibility of simply assimilating the Judeans (IMHO the Babylonians were just pansies, but that's irrelevant).

I suppose the point is that, yes, nations that very visibly stood out did - and therefore should - have some problems when compared to their neighbours. Nothing crippling, though, and one must observe that there were certain advantages involved as well.

After alot of debate, the vote comes in and there is call for an Indo-European Cradle for Cradle #1- thus this Cradle becomes majority-Indo. After this, the map is divided among those people wishing for a Persain style* culture, those wishing for a Greek/Roman culture, and those wishing for a Celtic culture. These regions are mapped, and people are forbidden to create a culture associated with the region outside the mainstay.

After this, we can take a Greek culture onwards. Say that on the map, a region lying between two mountain ranges, a desert, a sea, and an expanse of black will be given a greek name (Lets be cheap and go Hellenes). Within this region, Greek cultures would be dicatated. Players must adopt the Greek panthenon, through they are free to choose a patron god if they wish on a national level. As I said before, nations bordering two regions may take their pick. (NOTE- this is not to say that the cultures can't grow outside their starting positions- if a strong nation takes over swathes of land located in another zone, then the culture of that nation expands along with it.)

Heh, that's actually more homogenic than what I meant. Much more homogenic, as a matter of fact.

1) that I am pretty crappy at creating cultures

Which is why you should leave that to the players, generally-speaking. Hell, I'm sure you could trust people like ~Darkening~, LittleBoots and me (i.e. those who seme particularily interested in this matter) to help you out additionally.

2) when there are 30 different cultures floating around and all of them are new to me, I get them confused.

You'll get used to them, but it would be best to keep a file summarising the key points here if it gets seriously confusing.

I still think it would be best to have three separate cradles. Picture how cool it would be when they start to overlap. Primitive cradles would have more advanced nations of mysterious origins and bizarre cultures arriving, and you'd only see a little bit of the action happening in other areas.

It's not a self-value. Let's see what works out.

What I implied was that in OTL, cultures are built upon predasacors. That hasn't been done in NESing, and the person left out will be an oddball.

Not sure what are you saying here.

---

Okay, so do we have anything like a consensus on the regions, cradles and cultures? The latter seem to be the most difficult issue to work out, but I believe we can agree/have already agreed about the concise geographical descriptions of regions; that will, after all, be helpful for more than just culture, and won't be all that difficult as the starting regions shouldn't be too large anyway. About cultures, perhaps it won't be too wrong to take roots that are at least distantly similar to the OTL ancient cultures, but develop differently from then on; both the good and the bad points here stem from it being a (conscious) simplification. IMHO the sheer weight of the load it would get off our backs and the back of Chan-Bahlun as well, as people seem to be strangely concerned about that ( ), generally outweighs the other problems, especially as the civilisations will still be only loosely similar and will develop far, far away soon enough. Besides, it worked for Daftpanzer.

 

[Swissempire]

I still think there should be a seperate thread for each culture, so the stories and the diplo are homogenous in every thread. It almost FORCES IC if not everyone has everything forced down their throat. Its fine if you lurk the other thread Das and Alex and Darkening, but if we are able to keep each thread seperate, it creates a climate of seperation that is wanted at these early times.

Technology wise, Bird, I like your solution

Culturally, I think the best solution, since we're starting in the Iron Age or that equilavent, is to in each cradle have the concise geographic make-up and then have the players from each cradle negotiate basically what they want their cradle to be like. Then they give you this little basic and create what they want their end-result culture to be. In the pre-update that gets us to the modern time, explain how all the states rose to existance.

Also, whe can we get started. Cause i have my culture and i want to start story-making!

 

[das]

I still think there should be a seperate thread for each culture, so the stories and the diplo are homogenous in every thread. It almost FORCES IC if not everyone has everything forced down their throat. Its fine if you lurk the other thread Das and Alex and Darkening, but if we are able to keep each thread seperate, it creates a climate of seperation that is wanted at these early times.

That would be one hell to manage properly, and generally seems unwarranted as there isn't usually *that* much content early on.

Culturally

There are two cultural discussions going on right now, so I suppose it can get a bit confusing. You see, there's the discussion about the starting point and the discussion about the prior evolution and branching of cultures. I believe we should solve the latter first, seeing as the former is likely to at least partially procede from it.

since we're starting in the Iron Age or that equilavent

It hasn't been fully established yet, and I certainly hope it's not what we will end up having. Let's start in Bronze Age instead; that would be better on just about all the counts I could think of.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Ooh! Idea!

What if you provide several cradle maps, we provide our nation descriptions and places we'd like to start on each map, and you determine which place we get put, based on our cultures?

I still think there should be a seperate thread for each culture, so the stories and the diplo are homogenous in every thread. It almost FORCES IC if not everyone has everything forced down their throat. Its fine if you lurk the other thread Das and Alex and Darkening, but if we are able to keep each thread seperate, it creates a climate of seperation that is wanted at these early times.

Hear Hear!

 

[das]

What if you provide several cradle maps, we provide our nation descriptions and places we'd like to start on each map, and you determine which place we get put, based on our cultures?

Sans the maps this was the initial idea, if you recall. However, that too does not answer the question of interconnection, which, I maintain, is the main yet-unresolved question; after we find a suitable solution to it the rest should fall into place easily enough.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

I suppose, but I think my idea would provide a good compromise between exact placement and logical cultures.

 

[das]

As said, it's not your idea, it was already suggested before but certain unclarities inherent in it led to an eventual rise of the present discussions. So it would make for a pretty poor compromise, especially as nobody here seems to want "exact placement" (logical cultures is a different matter, but I suppose a lot depends on what logic do you mean here - geographical or genetic).

 

[Lord_Iggy]

The placing a dot on each of the different maps wasn't my idea? I must have missed that one.

 

[das]

Ah, sorry, I seem to have mis-read. However, as said before, it doesn't seem like the matter of actual placement is a particularily significant one as of now; the cultural question has evolved into something else, specifically, at what general presumptions could be made about the initial state and interrelationships of the cultures. Your suggestion is largely irrelevant as far as that issue is concerned, no?

 

[Swissempire]

I just want to friggin' PLAAYYY.

I actually like Iggy's Idea. If we all provided a place we wanted to start on the 3 different maps and our basic culture ideas, Bird could highlight shared strands between each culture, place us, and provide a little more background information. After placement the cradles would get together and form a consesus on some sort of vague shared background.

I.E.

I want right here on Map A, Here on Map B, and Hurr on Map C.

My culture is materialistic, aesthetic, grandiose and although not extremely warlike, it doesn't have any qualms with fighting.

After placement, Bird comes back and says, "You're in Cradle A. The people in cradle A are bronze-skinned, Afroasiatic-like and dwell mostly along the 3 major rivers of the region. They have migrated here over 8,000 years ago."

Then Cradle A gets together and decides on Vague cultural issues and naming stuff. Perhaps even some similarity in Creation Myths
___________________________________________

Seems like it could work. Its obviously not the most complicated solution, but it seems like a comprimise between the two camps of "Hard Culture" and "Soft Culture".

What about the issue of domestication and agricutlure though. It seems that the plants and animals of this world would be slightly different. Not wholly different, just slightly.

 

[das]

it seems like a comprimise between the two camps of "Hard Culture" and "Soft Culture".

Actually, it is the "hard culture" (or possibly "soft culture" - both names fit in a way, so it's a poor classification) camp, which doesn't seem to have previously existed. So no, it's not a compromise at all; furthermore, it feels way too contrived. Why not just settle some basic matters for the cradles (main migration patterns and origins) and then start it like a more or less normal fresh start, with people joining in whatever cradle seems to work best for their ideas? Far easier that way, IMHO.

Ofcourse, it all depends on what Birdjaguar ultimately decides to do with the cradle quantity.

What about the issue of domestication and agricutlure though. It seems that the plants and animals of this world would be slightly different. Not wholly different, just slightly.

Then what's the point of them being any different at all?

EDIT: Before we decide on anything else though, it would really be useful if Birdjaguar were to say his last word on the topic of cradles. I think three is a wholly reasonable number, and a one we could work with quite fine.

 

[~Darkening~]

The only thing comming from these "discussions" is a headache and alot of arguements

-looks above-
......
The headache has arrived . Anywho, I'm only allowed to say one smart thing a day, so ignore that last post from yesterday.

Bah. What true good does anything do? Why did Imago have a Past Wars page? Why did Bird have the House of Verner? Because these things are nifty. They give the story life and these connections will do the same. Cultures do not exist in a vacuum and the connections between languages and cultures are fascinating. In short, because they add enjoyment to the game and thats what its all about.

The same reason I had 'fluff' (I think I referred to it as that..), the same reason Iggy had a historical timeline, the same reason all the other examples occur- it makes the players happy . Bird did the Verner to tie the stories in Europe togethor (at least I think that was why), the same reason for Soun Suk or whatever the pirate-guy was. I'm not quite sure why we're having this arguement, as I agreed that it makes the NES nice and pretty- but that shouldn't be mandated. Not all languages are directly related when they're physically close, through I can see the marks they make on each other. As long as a limit is established, and the player keeps in respect to the theme of the Cradle, then yes, it should work. Final word for now- just because it makes it fun for one player doesn't make it fun for every player.

I politely disagree, so long as we can act mature. I think that it can work out, even if it takes, like you suggested, smaller groups (which is fine with me).

Might only be me but I hate long, rambling, multi-sectioned responses .

Actually, while there is a very large number of possibilities, only a relative few will come into existance and these relative few should have ties to the other cultures if things are going to have even a semblance of realism. Kingdoms are not monocultural fortresses that stand the test of time forever. There shouldn't be only one asiatic country, or only one greco country. Of course, I think the more we move away from OTL cultures the better, but vague comparisons (especially in regards to appearance) are unavoidable and not really bad.

I am aware that only a few will develop- what I'm speculating is that there are alot of possibilities, and the few who choose from the less popular will suffer if penalties are enforced. And I fail to see the reasoning behind the line about the moncultural fortress, as I proposed that a general mixing occur near the meeting regions of cultures. And I think you mistoke my analogy. I didn't propose one Greek nation- rather, I proposed one Greek starting region- there can be many kingdoms within a single region, especially as that region expands into the darkness (as the Greek kingdoms would grow), and there should be more than one incarnate.

Well, the real world had more than three cradles, but if you want to boil it down to Mesopotamia, China, and Mesoamerica, I think that it all works out. Andeans and Amazonians are related to some extent (if distantly), Celts, Greeks, Egyptians, Sumer, Urian, and Indians all share Indo-European ancestry. I'm not so sure about Scythians and Chinese, but there aren't too many more bases necessary to include every culture that ever existed. A ridiculous number of cultures can be spawned from similar starting points.

And also, who says all culture must originate in the Cradle? I mean, the first ones will, but Steppe cultures from similar areas (I do like the regions idea) can share the same kind of basic group set-up, as can tribal peoples, and whatever else you can think up. I'm not saying we should only have three ethnicities, but that people who start in similar locations should be similar.

I'm using three simply because I believe it was already proposed a long time ago. The number of Cradles doesn't bother me, as it only means that there will be fewer NESers in each Cradle, less dealings within the Cradles, and less space left undiscovered inbetween the Cradles. After that is said, I can see the use of using Mesoamerica, Indo-European, and Asian through a few are left unspoken for (such as African). The Andeans and Amazonians are related (either closely or middle-distance, NK would know better than me), through I just mentioned both as they're far different in style.

I thought we were talking about the Cradles? Anywho, as for your steppe probe, who is say where they should develop? I would only assume that if they were located close to the originating Cradle, they would match the make up of the local region (mainly physical traits). As for the three ethnicities, this is mostly from my lack of a better word. I'm not arguing for only Black, White, and Asain races. What I mean when I refer to 'ethnicity' is the common background of the peoples, not their race. They could be a mixture of blacks and whites, or completely unmixed nations, within the same culture and Region. The arachai common background decided by the groups would make up the main 'ethnicity' for the Cradle, through others could come into prominince along the fringes of the Cradles.

Well, he will have a massive cultural advantage if he survives. He consciously chose to be the oddball. If he wants to be the oddball, and does get discriminated against, I guarantee that if he survives his culture will be strong. As for the Steppe nations, I talked about those above. Essentially... what about them? They aren't part of the Cradle and are a different geographic region with more or less its own history. It would be nice if connections could be figured out (read: made up) afterwards, but they are so different and come in so late (relatively) that it doesn't matter as much. Steppe nations can be distantly related to Asiatic cradles, but, given that its a Steppe nation, it won't be in a Cradle in the first place. The purpose of the Cradle Groups isn't to fit all cultures into, but rather for those cultures starting in close proximity to each other. It affects no one else.

The key here is that just because they don't conform doesn't mean they're choosing to be an oddball. It means that they like the culture they've decided upon, have little interest in the core one, and prefer their own style. As for the Steppe nations, I was referring to the nations made up of horse-specifc cultures, ones that don't really mesh with the standard exposed Cradle.

I think this is a little bit of an exaggeration. Individualism is highly encouraged. Blatant disregard for some basic guidelines is not.

I have agreed to this- stick with the Region standards, and conform with the cultural standards. However, for your "Japanese in Africa" example, if its a simply cultural issue (removing the physical traits), I see no reason that there couldn't be a small region off to the far side accomindating.

I don't see how the oddball statement and the "Cultures are related and build upon each other" statement are related. Both also seem to be proving my point.

I am running out of time to address the rest, but fully intend to do so. Let me know what you think, its the only way things progress.

I think most of the confusion comes from me not writing these responses in Word . Anywho, about the 'oddball' statement. What I'm implying is that cultures are built upon older cultures. There should be a single archaic relationship between the nations of a specific Cradle, but after that, divergence can take place. Given that (from what I understand), Cradle Groups would decide the pre-history, there could be numerous changes taken place during the period.

How the hell is that going to be even feasible? At least if he goes with my suggestion and keeps moving them around to disorient people.

With Static Cradles, you could figure it out easily. Have three spaced out Cradles, and if you spot one person heading right towards the location of another Cradle (they specifically sent out explorers in that direction time after time, not bothering to pause or look in other directions), you should figure they peeked. Throw a disastor at them.

a) Frankly both multi-cultural and themed cradles are immensely overrated; it is more an issue of realism, on which we seem to agree.

As are single culture Cradles .

I am an uber-mod? That title just happens to belong to the very jaguar-bird under discussion, as his post about stats would clearly indicate. So I don't think he'll much mind.

You shall be, forever and ever, an ubermod to me . And as I believe I hadn't seen that post yet, I'm excused in my pity on him . If he wants to go all emo and devulge in self-punishment, then the more the merrier.

There used to be a kingdom named Judea, that was, as a matter of fact, very much an "odd-ball" despite the general consensus that the area should be Semitic Polytheistic. Now, it's not as though the Judeans had no allies; alliances of convenience always work out - and the main reason they got attacked so damn often was that they were sitting on an important strategic position. Still, it did cause some diplomatic complications, additional clashes with other Semitic tribes in the area and, in the end, a rather harsh occupation policy due to the apparent impossibility of simply assimilating the Judeans (IMHO the Babylonians were just pansies, but that's irrelevant).

I suppose the point is that, yes, nations that very visibly stood out did - and therefore should - have some problems when compared to their neighbours. Nothing crippling, though, and one must observe that there were certain advantages involved as well.

I'm not arguing against religious alliances and such; what I'm arguing against is Mass-alliances based on the common thought of culture (more realistically religion). I don't think seeing 5-1 holy wars as entirely realistic .

Which is why you should leave that to the players, generally-speaking. Hell, I'm sure you could trust people like ~Darkening~, LittleBoots and me (i.e. those who seme particularily interested in this matter) to help you out additionally.

Whoever said this deserves to be smacked. I've often told people that you don't have to be bloody creative to be unique. In any case, just take an idea (an idea that fits somewhat), and run with it. Anyways, if you must, then let someone else make the culture for you, and then assimilate it to your standings (create a patron god or etc).

You'll get used to them, but it would be best to keep a file summarising the key points here if it gets seriously confusing.

I think it would be helpful if the main creators of a culture (or group) would collect their info, arrange everything properly, and then send it for Bird. Such a "packet" would give him a resource to look back against, and would contain all the major points of the culture.

Not sure what are you saying here.

I'm not sure what I said either. Just ignore that last post.

I still think there should be a seperate thread for each culture, so the stories and the diplo are homogenous in every thread. It almost FORCES IC if not everyone has everything forced down their throat. Its fine if you lurk the other thread Das and Alex and Darkening, but if we are able to keep each thread seperate, it creates a climate of seperation that is wanted at these early times.

I guess its mainly my advocation to alot of work for the mod for my objections .

There are two cultural discussions going on right now, so I suppose it can get a bit confusing. You see, there's the discussion about the starting point and the discussion about the prior evolution and branching of cultures. I believe we should solve the latter first, seeing as the former is likely to at least partially procede from it.

I think the main problem is the recording of Pre-history. I think we've all agreed that cultures should be related at least at some level, and that the main arguing point is the divergence of the branches. I'm advocating that more unique cultures could diverge from the main stock earlier, giving them more time to arrange their own culture. More numerous cultures would diverge later, and would form the majority of the continuing lines.

I just want to friggin' PLAAYYY.

Incrediably seconded . If this doesn't start (i.e, the Cradle Groups) in two weeks or less, it'll be incrediably annoying . And, if it starts latter, I'll simply switch to Lucky's fresh start, and be annoyed at arguing all this for nothing .

After all these talks, I am incrediably against Bird declaring Swiss's idea. I'd advocate the Cradle Group idea, where those wishing to play in one cradle declare (as a majority) what phsyical bearings the natives have. Such as a group declaring one cradle to be Asian, one to be Indo-European, or one declaring their Cradle African. Later on, as the map is expanded, the unshown cultures could exist in foreign locations.

 

[North King]

If this doesn't start (i.e, the Cradle Groups) in two weeks or less, it'll be incrediably annoying . And, if it starts latter, I'll simply switch to Lucky's fresh start, and be annoyed at arguing all this for nothing .

Er. Do you know how difficult it is to make maps that quickly? Learn patience, Padawan.

 

[~Darkening~]

Er. Do you know how difficult it is to make maps that quickly? Learn patience, Padawan.

....You're joking . No? Okay then. *Purenes**Lucknes**DNESER**LINES*-shall I go onwards? Don't even make me drop the T-bomb. I was mostly joking, through I would be annoyed if this fails to start .

 

[North King]

....You're joking . No? Okay then. *Purenes**Lucknes**DNESER**LINES*-shall I go onwards? Don't even make me drop the T-bomb. I was mostly joking, through I would be annoyed if this fails to start .

What's wrong with PureNES? And, for that matter, LINES? Mods have RL difficulties; if that is too much for you, open up an NES and see how well you do.