New NESes, ideas, development, etc

[Birdjaguar]

Maybe I'm a little late with this, but, I remembered that I have the SymNES2 rules set saved along with about 20 others in a rule saving spree.

Do we need a thread for rule sets?

Game or Rules name
Author
Date
Link to game?

The the rules in spoilers.

 

[Adrogans]

I wouldn't mind one, but I am not going to mod for a long time.

 

[das]

The values of ancient Germanic tribes:
- (Familial, village, tribal) commonality;
- Individual martial valour;
- Ancestry(+ancestral family status) (the source of all land claims and the justification of all aristocracy);
- Martial kingship (not quite monarchism; the king is the supreme military leader, is respected as such by the warriors, and therefore it is shameful to outlive him in battle. Gumilyov (the poet, not the "historian") put it best (translation issues aside, i.e. it should be Atreid rather than Atreus and there are some other dubious moments as well), though it is ofcourse about a different culture to which this probably applied as well);
- Warrior comradeship (especially in the king's own retinue, which is a very small segment of the population that constitutes a military elite);
- Personal wealth=generosity (a virtue of kings and nobles. It's good to acquire wealth, but the only proper use of wealth is to give it out to your retainers and other hangers-on);
- Hospitality;
- Possibly some vestiges of gerontocracy? Respect towards the elders.

Is this roughly what you had in mind, Kal'thzar?

 

[Kal'thzar]

essentiallly yes, although it needs to be abstracted up a level, to allow the process of say roman infulences occur to them in an easier way.

 

[das]

That's the thing, I don't think it should. Up until a point all the "Roman" changes to Frankish culture were purely aesthetic, and when that "point" came it was simply the creation of a new culture (and IMHO the Germanic elements remained definitely predominant in that one, while vestiges of Roman culture just sort of died away or were assimilated into the Church). There is no good way to represent Roman influence on the level of values, because it did not exist in any apparently representable way.

 

[Kal'thzar]

I'm searching for a means to produce some homogenity amoung the cultures that a player creates and its neighbours.

I'm intrigued that you think there was no cultural shift after romes fall and the take over of regions on the map by germanic tribes.

 

[das]

I'm searching for a means to produce some homogenity amoung the cultures that a player creates and its neighbours.

Well, that's what my earlier suggestion was for. This is just the values common to certain cultures. Ofcourse, Germanic values could be extended to one extent or another to all Indo-European barbarians.

I'm intrigued that you think there was no cultural shift after romes fall and the take over of regions on the map by germanic tribes.

Not on the level of values, and not because of the Germanic invasions directly. German culture in the countryside, in the burgs and at the court evolved primarily due to the establishment of feudalism (i.e. social change). Roman culture in the old cities half-withered away, half-evolved under the influence of Christianity. Then eventually the two merged into a Christian feudal proto-French culture (okay, ofcourse it wasn't really all that smooth).

 

[flyingchicken]

Okay, guys, the "classic" map is godawful, godawfully terrible, and godawfully, terribly horrible when it comes to islands (among other things).

So, I am calling on everyone to help with the latest major reform of the map, starting with those godawfully, terribly, horribly fugly islands at the very least. I personally don't like the Winkel-Tripel Symph-maps, but I like the classic map a lot less in its current sordid state.

Original (from Abby's thread):

Spoiler :

My work so far (spot the changes if you can! ):

Spoiler :

I suggest changing the borders of all the super-tiny islands (i.e. those not even 1-pixel large in Symph's Winkel-Tripel maps) to 1-pixel thick and 1x1 pixel large.

 

[Kraznaya]

I see uh, that the Bahamas have been amended? Anyway, I don't know why you're working on that map fc, it's a lost cause

 

[flyingchicken]

I see uh, that the Bahamas have been amended? Anyway, I don't know why you're working on that map fc, it's a lost cause

1) Your powers of observation are weak.
2) Oh ye of little faith in the power of DEMOCRACY.

 

[Abaddon]

I suppose your work has purpose, but i've never known battles in NES matter to such details (pixel widths)

 

[flyingchicken]

It's not about battles, it's about not looking terrible and being easier to use. Have you ever tried translating historical maps into it?

Also, pixel widths are for representation, not, again, for battles. Those islands are tiny and it would be useful if people knew that (I remember one instance where EQ said something to the effect of "you can't build bases there, those Pacific Islands are useless chunks of volcanic rock." Clearly differentiating useless rock with useful rock is, well, useful.

Why this "battle" mindset anyway?

 

[Abaddon]

because battles dictate the map changing, even your example is "battle mindset"

 

[The Strategos]

And yes, the wiki entry confuses me.

This is extremely unhelpful in that I cannot get into your brain and see what exactly confuses you, which limits my ability to make it less confusing.

I find these to be usefull for my purposes as Cultural Values;
Secular/Pious - although maybe Strategos has better ideas

There are no “secular” states which I know of until, at the earliest, Descartes kicked of the Enlightenment (I am open to being persuaded that China is an exception, though I don’t think it is). At the most you had Institutional (or “official&#8221 vs. Popular, and even there most (all?) nations had both.

Until monotheism religious values did not really change in a given region. The most you would have is either the identification of your gods with foreign gods (such as in the case of Rome and Greece) or the expansion of the pantheons to incorporate new gods. Regardless, most common people would still worship at the same temple that their ancestors did, no matter whether that particular god was known as Baal, Marduk, or Zeus.

It is only with the full flower of monotheism, with its claims to exclusivity that there was significant structural change in people’s religious views (though even then there were syncretism, a pagan festival or sacred grove were “baptized” in order to make it more palatable to monotheism). I say the full flower of monotheism, because both biblical and archeological evidence shows that in at the very least pre-exilic Israeli monotheism (if it existed, and it is debated whether it did) suffered under syncretism, such as YHWH having a wife named Asherah, who was also the wife of the “father deity” El of Canaanite religion.

because battles dictate the map changing, even your example is "battle mindset"

Only in certain situations and only in the broadest sense of the word “battle” (for example calling month long sieges which end in the surrender of a town a “battle&#8221. You also have the map changing because of settlements and the encroachment of settlers on formerly nomadic lands. Maps need to be bigger and more realistic simply because for most (note: most, not all) of human history land exchanges happened on the scale of cities not countries. The memorable examples you can counter with are memorable simply because they are the exceptions to this, and so stand out in history and memory. If people got the same thrill at seeing a small city fall into their hands as they presently do seeing an entire country become occupied, NESing would fit closer to my ideals of NESing (though recognizing it would fit worse with other ideals).

 

[Kal'thzar]

There are no “secular” states which I know of until, at the earliest, Descartes kicked of the Enlightenment (I am open to being persuaded that China is an exception, though I don’t think it is). At the most you had Institutional (or “official”) vs. Popular, and even there most (all?) nations had both.

Until monotheism religious values did not really change in a given region. The most you would have is either the identification of your gods with foreign gods (such as in the case of Rome and Greece) or the expansion of the pantheons to incorporate new gods. Regardless, most common people would still worship at the same temple that their ancestors did, no matter whether that particular god was known as Baal, Marduk, or Zeus.

It is only with the full flower of monotheism, with its claims to exclusivity that there was significant structural change in people’s religious views (though even then there were syncretism, a pagan festival or sacred grove were “baptized” in order to make it more palatable to monotheism). I say the full flower of monotheism, because both biblical and archeological evidence shows that in at the very least pre-exilic Israeli monotheism (if it existed, and it is debated whether it did) suffered under syncretism, such as YHWH having a wife named Asherah, who was also the wife of the “father deity” El of Canaanite religion.

So basically it would be better to put down Syncretic/Exclusive?

Also, did you ever extend your Religion essay?

Not on the level of values, and not because of the Germanic invasions directly. German culture in the countryside, in the burgs and at the court evolved primarily due to the establishment of feudalism (i.e. social change). Roman culture in the old cities half-withered away, half-evolved under the influence of Christianity. Then eventually the two merged into a Christian feudal proto-French culture (okay, ofcourse it wasn't really all that smooth).

Would it be fair to say that there was a smoothing around the edges though? I certainly think thats likely, and is primarliy the reason I want to do this project. (Eliminate Egypt/China/Aztec next to each other but developing in a vaccum).

Anyway, yes your values are helpfull , care to extend it to other societies, or anybody else? East Asians and so forth would be usefull.

 

[das]

There are no “secular” states which I know of until, at the earliest, Descartes kicked of the Enlightenment (I am open to being persuaded that China is an exception, though I don’t think it is).

There is the distinction between secular states and secular cultures to keep in mind here (ofcourse, China definitely wasn't the latter and probably wasn't the former since religious ceremonies have always been one of the main affairs of the government and the Son of Heaven was as much a spiritual leader as temporal; China was a theocracy in the broader sense of the word).

At the most you had Institutional (or “official&#8221 vs. Popular, and even there most (all?) nations had both.

It still varied. I suppose you could say there was institutional religion even in Ancient Greece, but it is certainly incomparable with institutional religion in Egypt. Popular religion is, ofcourse, omnipresent.

Until monotheism religious values did not really change in a given region. The most you would have is either the identification of your gods with foreign gods (such as in the case of Rome and Greece) or the expansion of the pantheons to incorporate new gods. Regardless, most common people would still worship at the same temple that their ancestors did, no matter whether that particular god was known as Baal, Marduk, or Zeus.

Arguably the spread of mysteries and oriental cults in Greece and then to a greater extent in Rome was associated with/led to a major change in religious values (less tied to native and ancestral tradition, usually more accessible to social outsiders and so on). Then again, they coexisted with the old cults and mostly filled a niche; it's just that this niche expanded significantly over time.

Maps need to be bigger and more realistic simply because for most (note: most, not all) of human history land exchanges happened on the scale of cities not countries.

I generally agree, but it's an important technical note that cities often functioned as chokepoints. Capturing and securing the major cities of the region will generally grant one control over the countryside as well.

EDIT:

So basically it would be better to put down Syncretic/Exclusive?

I suppose so, but exclusive religions would be in a definite minority (Islam and post-Hezekiah Judaism come to mind). No, levels of religious organisation is where it's really at.

Would it be fair to say that there was a smoothing around the edges though?

Well, some degree of it is inevitable, but really, urban Roman values simply did not work well for the countryside and rural Frankish values did not work well in the cities. Franks who lived in the cities were assimilated by them, ofcourse. The Roman rural population is what I'm less sure about, but eventually it integrated just fine into the same feudal culture, since socially it was moving in roughly the same direction despite their very different origin. Not sure/don't remember what became of Roman landlords, but I'd conjecture that most of those who survived eventually withdrew to the cities and the Church, since they weren't exactly military aristocracy material.

 

[The Strategos]

So basically it would be better to put down Syncretic/Exclusive?

Depends on what era you intend to cover. The earliest “exclusive” religion you have is monotheistic Judaism which “mainstream” scholarship would date at around ~700 BCE (and I will emphasize once again that this is a highly debated question). From there for all intents and purposes it is only joined by Christianity post its break with Judaism (~100 CE) and later Islam (~622 CE). Basically for the next 1000 years, those stand alone in the “exclusive” category, and even then, as I mentioned earlier, there were syncretistic tendencies on the popular level in all of them.

Also, did you ever extend your Religion essay?

The last update is recorded in my signature.

It still varied. I suppose you could say there was institutional religion even in Ancient Greece, but it is certainly incomparable with institutional religion in Egypt. Popular religion is, of course, omnipresent.

It is not a question of institutional/official religion or not, but rather what form(s) did the institutionalization of religion take. When a state funds, out of public money, the construction of a temple or sacrifices, such as the Greeks did, in my definition that is institutional/official religion.

Arguably the spread of mysteries and oriental cults in Greece and then to a greater extent in Rome was associated with/led to a major change in religious values (less tied to native and ancestral tradition, usually more accessible to social outsiders and so on). Then again, they coexisted with the old cults and mostly filled a niche; it's just that this niche expanded significantly over time.

The problem with mystery cults is, well, they were mysterious, which means we don’t really know much about them. I would be very hesitant to make general observations based on guesses and suppositions of things even the most specialized scholars do not understand well. Even with the mysteries, the vast majority of them were tied to a locale (Eleusian Mysteries in Eleusis, Cabiri in Samothrace, Zeus Panamaros in Asia Minor, Andania in Messenia) and those that weren’t did have a religious precedent in the Diaspora worship of YHWH.

I don’t completely buy your link with a major change by being less tied to native and ancestral tradition. We know that as far back as the bronze age the cosmopolitan (such as traders) would worship other gods depending on their locale. So, for example, if you were traveling down a road and saw a shrine, you would worship there even if your family/clan had never heard of that particular god/spirit. When the mysteries spread beyond the locale, they often were brought by the natives, such as in the spread of the Dionysian Mysteries into Italy being brought by Greek slaves. When it spread outside of that ethnic group, it is unclear as the motivation behind it. Livy, for example, in speaking of the spread of the Dionysian Mysteries attributes it to the “joy of wine and of food” rather than to any religious motivation.

Eh, anyway, I don’t really know what my point is with all this, but there you go.

I generally agree, but it's an important technical note that cities often functioned as chokepoints. Capturing and securing the major cities of the region will generally grant one control over the countryside as well.

I acknowledge, but the amount of countryside one can gain from the fall of one city is necessarily limited, especially in the more urban areas such as the Netherlands and Italy. On the older maps this is virtually impossible to show, on the newer maps, while difficult, it is possible.

 

[das]

When it spread outside of that ethnic group, it is unclear as the motivation behind it.

The important thing is that it did. Or do you mean to say that those were merely fads and of no large-scale cultural significance?

I acknowledge, but the amount of countryside one can gain from the fall of one city is necessarily limited, especially in the more urban areas such as the Netherlands and Italy.

True. I was thinking more of France and other large territorial states in this case, though even then there would be complications. Still, my point is that most "land exchanges" occurred on the level of cities or provinces in comparatively more rural regions. Conquering entire countries is a different matter entirely, and often had more to do with political maneuvering, which often fails to receive the attention it is due (because it seems gamey, I suppose. The trick is to give the other players a good way to react and/or get involved in the intrigue, so that political intrigues could more often lead to decisive results than they do now while also becoming less predictable and entirely likely to backfire as dramatically as they could succeed).

 

[The Strategos]

The important thing is that it did. Or do you mean to say that those were merely fads and of no large-scale cultural significance?

I suppose the point I should have been trying to make was that we don't know if the mystery cults genuinely were religious phenomena or whether they were social phenomena, such as suggested by Livy, with religious overtones much like guilds, political parties, familial clans, theater, or a host of other phenomena of Roman times. Because of this I would hesitate on how much significance I would put in appealing to mystery cults in developing rules. In my mind it would be akin to using the Freemasons to create rules about religion in a NES set in 1700.

 

[das]

Well, the lines between social and religious phenomena are often blurred, especially in pre-Christian times; one might as easily state that those were religious phenomena with strong social overtones, as all Roman cults tended to be, in one way or another. I would not be so quick to dismiss genuine and significant religious devotion, especially in the later periods when the mysteries gained more adherents and spread across the greater empire. Incidentally, how does Mithraism fit into this, in your opinion?