Project SYNTHESIS

[OMG!!!]

I prefer an Austrian, Magyar, Polish, or... I don't know, a Visigothic or Hun civilization above a Prussian civilization that is already represented by the HRE.

 

[ck07]

I don't want to answer this in detail because it really doesn't belong here. But insinuating I should read up on history while you present a superficial list that's completely out of historical context doesn't help. The fact that I'm German myself probably doesn't help either, because I feel uncomfortable arguing on that topic because it feels I'm pushed into a moral defensive (but it sounds as if you've got a personal motivation here as well ...).

Too bad.

 

[Linkman226]

No, not "too bad." Leoreth did the right thing because that's NOT the goal of this thread. Discuss it in OT or something.

OMG!!!- 1) HRE becomes Austria on Prussian spawn
2) How are those other civs worthy of inclusion at all??

 

[ck07]

No, not "too bad." Leoreth did the right thing because that's NOT the goal of this thread. Discuss it in OT or something.
....

Whether similar German and Italian UHVs are justified by the histories of the two civs is on topic if anything is:

Still disagree re UHVs related to Fascism or to Italy's modern colonial effort. The Mussolini episode was a moment, not characteristic of Italian civilization from 1167 onward. Not like Germany where hypernationalism/expansionism/anti-Slav racism/anti-Semitism had deep roots.

Besides, making Italy like a very junior Germany is boring. Renaissance Italian city states are different from nearly all other civs and therefore interesting.

Your reply was personal:

This sounds blatantly racist.

As was Leoreth's:

it sounds as if you've got a personal motivation here

Your project seems worthwhile. It's too bad that my effort to help has infuriated you both.

 

[J. pride]

I guess but if the Seljuks conquer from Iran to Turkey, which the Khwarazmids didn't, how would I get rid of that?

The Seljuks lost Anatolia by themselves. Imo, does it really matter. I think ur worrying about the litttlest things but if u really want to be that historical id just make them a Byzantines a bit more aggressive. No actually I take that back; the Byzies are already good at reconoquest; ive seen many games where byzies got Anitoch and Jerusalem back. But since u a are adding the Seljuks consider replacing the the Byzantine UP to cant collapse if they control Constantinople. As long as they exist they will reconquer but my concern is that they will collapse which they already sometimes do.

Don't you find this too deterministic?

My bad, maybe I did'nt explain myself correctly. That is what a perfect situation would look like; in any particular game i would only expect 60-70% of this to happen; none of this excepth spawns and conquerers events. I just want to know if we are on the same page for most of this so do u agree with this (i will leave most dates on details on you):

1)Seljuks spawn on x date with enough force to effectively conquer or flip Cetral Asia and Persia.

2)On some point they make peace with the Arabs and focus on conquering Byzantines (maybe u can represent this by some unit spawns or anyway u find efficient.

3) Seljuk name change to Khawerzminids and Byzantine eventually reconquer Anatolia in most games.

4) Mongol conquerers event for the Khawerzminids.

5) Timurids spawn on x date.

6) Name change to Khanate of Bukhara after Safavid spawn.

The thing is that, one, you can't give them diplo halfway, and two, they'll fill up a civ slot by making them a civ with which you can communicate.

Is this the only thing we disagree on? ( I will address this after u respond)

 

[Linkman226]

Please drop the topic. The entire Italian UHV doesn't revolve around Fascism.

If you want the unique flavor of Renaissance Italian city-states, you can play RFC:E. The RFC map unfortunately can't accommodate that.

 

[Linkman226]

The Seljuks lost Anatolia by themselves. Imo, does it really matter. I think ur worrying about the litttlest things but if u really want to be that historical id just make them a Byzantines a bit more aggressive. No actually I take that back; the Byzies are already good at reconoquest; ive seen many games where byzies got Anitoch and Jerusalem back. But since u a are adding the Seljuks consider replacing the the Byzantine UP to cant collapse if they control Constantinople. As long as they exist they will reconquer but my concern is that they will collapse which they already sometimes do.

Hmmm... it's certainly better than the one right now with espionage. (no offense Leoreth, but does the UP you added have any basis in history?)

A name for this UP, perhaps? Any suggestions?

My bad, maybe I did'nt explain myself correctly. That is what a perfect situation would look like; in any particular game i would only expect 60-70% of this to happen; none of this excepth spawns and conquerers events. I just want to know if we are on the same page for most of this so do u agree with this (i will leave most dates on details on you):

1)Seljuks spawn on x date with enough force to effectively conquer or flip Cetral Asia and Persia.

2)On some point they make peace with the Arabs and focus on conquering Byzantines (maybe u can represent this by some unit spawns or anyway u find efficient.

3) Seljuk name change to Khawerzminids and Byzantine eventually reconquer Anatolia in most games.

4) Mongol conquerers event for the Khawerzminids.

5) Timurids spawn on x date.

6) Name change to Khanate of Bukhara after Safavid spawn.



Is this the only thing we disagree on? ( I will address this after u respond)

1)Good.
2)Hope that happens
3)Hmmm....ok
4)Yes
5)Sure
6)Hmmmm...sure

As for my progress guys, my schedule prevents me from working before 9 pm most days, so usually I can only mod a few hours of work in. My apologies for this, although I can't help it.

 

[Leoreth]

Hmmm... it's certainly better than the one right now with espionage. (no offense Leoreth, but does the UP you added have any basis in history?)

A name for this UP, perhaps? Any suggestions?

It's intended as a representation of Byzantine efforts to keep their empire going by cunning diplomacy despite their financial and military shortcomings. Espionage is the best way to represent this.

I never understood why the "never collapse while you control Constantinople" UP would be more historical. The Byzantine empire faced rebellion and secession on numerous occasions, and when it didn't, it was stable by RFC standards anyway.

 

[Linkman226]

Because historically, despite their losses, they never succumbed until the very core of their empire was taken, following the siege of Constantinople.

 

[J. pride]

The thing is that, one, you can't give them diplo halfway, and two, they'll fill up a civ slot by making them a civ with which you can communicate.

Thats why i suggest giving them diplmacy from the start. Secondly I though u can have any number of civ slots u want. I just dont want to have to deal with another Byzantine (like the one in regular RFC). It makes sense this way and anyways if u want the Seljuks to make peace with the Arabs and attack Byzantine then u will have to do it. I think u should at least give it a shot.

It's intended as a representation of Byzantine efforts to keep their empire going by cunning diplomacy despite their financial and military shortcomings. Espionage is the best way to represent this.

I never understood why the "never collapse while you control Constantinople" UP would be more historical. The Byzantine empire faced rebellion and secession on numerous occasions, and when it didn't, it was stable by RFC standards anyway.

This is because no matter how small Byzantine was or how many rebellion it faced it never collapsed thank to Constantinople (exception being the 4th Crusade). All in all its a good UHV because u can put extreme preussure on them that they went through in real life without collapsing them

 

[Leoreth]

Because historically, despite their losses, they never succumbed until the very core of their empire was taken, following the siege of Constantinople.

What happened shortly before and after Mantzikert then?

 

[Linkman226]

Thats why i suggest giving them diplmacy from the start. Secondly I though u can have any number of civ slots u want. I just dont want to have to deal with another Byzantine (like the one in regular RFC). It makes sense this way and anyways if u want the Seljuks to make peace with the Arabs and attack Byzantine then u will have to do it. I think u should at least give it a shot.

Hmmm... does anyone else have anything to comment on this? Personally I think the civ was too small to be worthy of diplomacy. And there's always scripted peace.

What happened shortly before and after Mantzikert then?

They didn't collapse, despite their emperor being captured. Sure there was some civil war and such, but at best that would be a few turns of anarchy in RFC equivalent terms.

What civ has the UP where you can't lose your core from a collapse? Or is that a modmod I'm thinking of?

 

[J. pride]

Hmmm... does anyone else have anything to comment on this? Personally I think the civ was too small to be worthy of diplomacy. And there's always scripted peace.

Really! the Seljuks were larger than the Byzantines, Dutch Colonial Empire and the Italians Colonial Empire. And the Timurids were as large as the Ottomans and larger than the Mughals Cholas and the HRE. The Timurids were the 21 largest empire in History and the Seljuks, Uzbeks Khanate and Khwaremids were around the 30's in terms of size. They were one of the largest empires in history

 

[Linkman226]

really stupid typo on my part

I meant to say 'too short lived'

 

[Leoreth]

They didn't collapse, despite their emperor being captured. Sure there was some civil war and such, but at best that would be a few turns of anarchy in RFC equivalent terms.

What civ has the UP where you can't lose your core from a collapse? Or is that a modmod I'm thinking of?

An effective collapse of Byzantine authority over all of Anatolia is what allowed the Seljuks to seize it in the first place.

And it's the Byzantine UP from RFCE as well as the effect of the Roman Emperor title in SoI.

 

[J. pride]

really stupid typo on my part

I meant to say 'too short lived'

Ok, I dont want to pressure u too much. So this will be the last post on the subject from my part. I just wanted to remind u that the empire in question here is the same empire which vassalized the Abbasids, the strongest and most advanced nation of its time and reduced the greatest European power (Byzantine) of its day to a mere city state that controlled Thrace and parts of greece.

Also u should keep in mind that these dyansties werent that shortlived when seen in the context of geographical location and timeperiod. The Seljuks(200 years), Timurids (120-150 years) and Khwarzeminids (200 years) lasted just as long as the Ummayads (200 years, Fatimids (250 years), Ayyubids(200 years) or even the Safavids (around 200 years).

If the Arabs whose representation includes most dynasties that lasted 200 years (Abbasids being the exception) than I think the Turkic Empires should be judged by the same scale too. We have to remember that the Middle East was a very fluid place when it came to Dynastaic changes and for the most part the only thing they changed were the ruling class.

 

[Linkman226]

@Leoreth- Ok, better UP idea- they can't lose Byzantium via collapse (i.e., first collapse, they'll collapse like normal human player except that they only keep Byzantium)

@J. pride- Alright, I suppose it makes sense. You were suggesting that the Seljuks and the Timurids get diplo? Or only the latter?

 

[J. pride]

@J. pride- Alright, I suppose it makes sense. You were suggesting that the Seljuks and the Timurids get diplo? Or only the latter?

That really depends on how u implement the system. Cenrtain things to remember if u put it in for both of them:
1) Seljuks should be inclined to declare peace with the Arabs after a conquering certain amounts of territories and maybe even open border or vassalize them sometimes.
2) Seljuks should get a conquerers horde in Anatolia when they make contact with the Byzantines (or u can make them really aggresive towards Byzantine)
3) They should rarely if ever declare peace on the Byzies.
4) The Timurids/Uzbeks should be hostile towards Persia for the most part but should be inclined to make peace if losing badly.
5) The Uzbeks should be inclined to vassalize to Russia and a slight chance of vassalizing to Persia if on the verge of being conquered (Nadir Shahs conquest).

BTW: When u the Turks remember to make the Byzantines more aggresive or give them more incentive to conquer Anatolia (if they need it) to represent the reconquests during the cursades.

Make the Mongols horde stronger for the Khwarezminids. The horde for Arabia should spawn near Baghdad in Mesopotamia. This will really show the two parts of the Mongols conquests of the Middle East. The first initial one that conquered Persia and Central Asia and a second one that conquered Mesopotamia and possibly Iraq.

 

[ck07]

I feel uncomfortable arguing on that topic because it feels I'm pushed into a moral defensive ....

In the hope that it may help with the issues that upset you yesterday, I offer a bit from a lecture in my European Foreign Policy course:

It is my judgment that, since 1949, FRG foreign policy has been the best behaved of any medium or large power in the world. And of course the reputation of Germany and Germans has recovered mightily over these sixty years.

Why? Because German elites [consistently] and the mass public [mostly or largely] have considered themselves "on a moral defensive" (as you put it).

In 1953 a committee of historians--supposedly informal, but actually closely watched by the governments--from five Western European countries plus FRG was formed to monitor the content of German history textbooks to make sure that the distortions and lies of the imperial, Weimar, and Nazi periods did not continue. The Germans did so well that by 1970 they could--and did--say to the others: "what about your textbooks?" Whereupon, to the discredit of the others, the group was disbanded.

In 1990 when the Germanies were unifying, Poland asked the four occupation powers to compel the new united Germany to reissue the guarantee--made years earlier by FRG--that it would never attempt to reclaim territory lost to Poland in 1945. Caring more about Germany, none would do it. Germany could have refused the Polish request as redundant by arguing that united Germany was not a new state but simply absorption of GDR by FRG. Instead Germany quietly did as asked.

A few months later I met a Danish college student on a bus who said to me: "Of course we still hate the Germans, but we don't fear them any more."

In 1991, Francois Mitterrand, sitting President of France, said almost exactly the same sentence in public.

In 1995, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Foreign Minister of FRG 1982-1992, said to me: "We must never again question borders in Europe," meaning that Germans must accept that the verdicts of 1918 and 1945 were right, proper, and permanent. A young German graduate student who was present asked: "When will we be treated as a normal country?" Genscher, visibly irritated, snapped: "When we stop asking questions like that."

I hope this helps.

 

[Linkman226]

Ck, back on topic please.

Before I invoke a mod.