While We Wait: Boredom Strikes Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
Technically Lord Iggy was the first one to popularize that style. "Northern Style" only refers to a white-background map with 2-pixel coastal borders. "Symphonic Style" is the black background map with the glowy coasts, as seen most recently in DaNES II.

We also have Symphony to thank for the most recent world map iterations, which are definitely better than the Jason map.
 
Ok here's my final fugly map for my NES set to start in two weeks or less. Whoever is willing to make it "pretty" and advance the borders for southern India, most of Indonesia, and some of the internal borders of the Holy Roman Empire (pm me for clarifications) gets a first turn bonus in my NES and first choice of nation. FYI the year is 1360 with 100 years of diversion with a Mongol victory at Ain Jalut.
EDIT: shitshitshit, Navarre should be one country I forgot to reunify it after the civil war.
 
If I get significant latitude with regards to Southeast Asia, then I can probably do something for you. However, I'm going to need to ask you some hard and fast questions about trade and what-the-hell happened to the Indian Ocean trade at both end termini: China and the Middle East.
 
Ok thanks a lot masada. You can have all the latitude you want and I'll start thinking of adaquate answers to your questions.
 
Well, you have three major routes for Indian Ocean trade into the Middle East. The first, is the Red Sea route starts in Alexandria passes down the Nile into the Necho canal which debouches into Qulzum and the Red Sea. This route in OTL seems to have only gained major significance (at least for Europeans) with the collapse of the Crusader States, the conversion of the Ilk-Khans to Islam and finally and most significantly the destruction of Baghdad by Tamerlane. It was still used to supply domestic Egyptian requirements, at least in part, since it seems that the majority of its imports were brought overland via Sinai. The second route passed through the Crusader states primarily from Antioch through to Aleppo, thence to Baghdad before it finally met the Persian Gulf at Basra. This route was in OTL the most significant partially because the Crusaders could to some extent exercise some measure of control over the Muslim merchantry. It also helped that Baghdad was a major centre of consumption as well as production and that it was by far the easiest route to satisfy that. Europeans just got lucky when they took over the Levant insofar as they were able to tap it for there own primarily consumptive purposes. The third route passes into Persia via Hormuz. European merchants tend to cluster in Cyprus and Little Armenia to service it in OTL although I guess a case could be made for the Levant if the Il-Khans are playing ball. Really, this is the natural route ceteris parabis for trade. The fourth route (and largely unimportant route) passes through Genoa, the Crimea and is the route that Marco Polo used. It only worked when the Mongols had united the steppes to a tolerable extent and when the other two routes were infeasible for European trade. This final route was only ever the fall-back and wasn't otherwise profitable.

The problem we have is that none of these routes seem to be functioning very well, if at all which has wide ranging consequences from the Italian city states, through to the Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Malabar, the Coromandel, into the Straits, and all the way to China. Its the major source of revenue for the Venetians and Genoese, the Crusaders; and a major source of revenue and economic stimulation for Mesopotamia, Egypt; as well as the only reason for any economic activity in Southern India apart from subsistence and that magnificently fails as a pre-condition of state development in Malabar if not in the Coromandel; and the only reason for anything to happen in the Malay Archipelago apart from the inordinately boring Javanese hydraulic agriculture. So, yeah, I need to know this and really considering what your trying to do so should you.
 
Yui, I'm still interested in the Byzantines.


Also, my NES is looking for players, especially Elite clans. Suggestions to the ruleset and the name of the city are very welcome too, even if you don't want to join the NES.
 
The Chinese look positively interesting. Since players don't actually play incompetent leaders (unless they themselves are incompetent, or some mishaps and chicanery in the field of diplomacy), it's looking like a world-dominating behemoth from here.

Of course there are internal elements at work, but where do you draw the line between restricting player freedom and punishing good gaming?
 
Methinks it should simply be reflected that there is only so much one man can do versus the laws of entropy. Basically, any country suffers from a great number of intrinsic problems, and people who really try to improve upon their position greatly in some way will tend to suffer much more from things like corruption and disobedience than those who are not particularly driven to create a Thousand Year Reich or what have you. Ofcourse, real good gaming means knowing how to use the balance between central and local authority in such a way as to get some things done, but as that involves compromises it should balance itself out. 18th century Russia is a rich source of examples of varying positions one could take in this regard.

You could also use a more blatant rubber band mechanic, but that's not very nice/internally justified... except in Fantasy NESes, maybe.
 
But then how do you distinguish NPCs in your country and the entities which the player controls, especially in games that lack an explicit "factions" stat? I've always thought that the player could just will a popular sentiment into existence and to his advantage.
 
Ofcourse he could, and when it is not "unreasonable" it may well be allowed, but a) no country is ever of one mind on everything, there are going to be counter-tendencies that a player could not simply override and b) opinions are nice and all, but that doesn't keep orders from being partly subverted or entirely overridden by their executors. There isn't even any need for factions for this to work; all you need is an understanding that no orders are ever carried out perfectly.
 
Ofcourse he could, and when it is not "unreasonable" it may well be allowed, but a) no country is ever of one mind on everything, there are going to be counter-tendencies that a player could not simply override and b) opinions are nice and all, but that doesn't keep orders from being partly subverted or entirely overridden by their executors. There isn't even any need for factions for this to work; all you need is an understanding that no orders are ever carried out perfectly.

...and mods willing to make bad things happen when players act like morons or try absurdly hamfisted attempts at subterfuge.
 
Or just whenever, really. BE the cruel and arbitrary hand of fortune.

But anyway, yeah, punishing stupidity in orders is a time-honed tradition. There are other ways to deal with it, though, which at least theoretically seem better for the NES as a whole. I recall EQ sometimes outright ignored stupid orders in the past to avoid a needless mess; in theory, "advising" players that seem to simply not understand the basic implications of what they're doing (especially if they are supposed to know that in-character) seems like it would be a good idea, but on the other hand it might not be entirely practical in an actual NES (not without making the schedule problem even worse).
 
I will do my best, and it seems that your questions are how do these routes work ATL so I will answer that.

Well, you have three major routes for Indian Ocean trade into the Middle East. The first, is the Red Sea route starts in Alexandria passes down the Nile into the Necho canal which debouches into Qulzum and the Red Sea. This route in OTL seems to have only gained major significance (at least for Europeans) with the collapse of the Crusader States, the conversion of the Ilk-Khans to Islam and finally and most significantly the destruction of Baghdad by Tamerlane. It was still used to supply domestic Egyptian requirements, at least in part, since it seems that the majority of its imports were brought overland via Sinai.
Hmm. Well it seems that this route never would have gained primacy, because the Crusader States never collapsed, but Alexandria and the Red Sea would probably major ports of trade now due to their ease of access for the Italian traders because it is owned by Jerusalem. Venice is largely dominant on the Red Sea, while the Genoese have a strong presence in Alexandria.

The second route passed through the Crusader states primarily from Antioch through to Aleppo, thence to Baghdad before it finally met the Persian Gulf at Basra. This route was in OTL the most significant partially because the Crusaders could to some extent exercise some measure of control over the Muslim merchantry. It also helped that Baghdad was a major centre of consumption as well as production and that it was by far the easiest route to satisfy that. Europeans just got lucky when they took over the Levant insofar as they were able to tap it for there own primarily consumptive purposes.
Ok that probably would be a profitable route. The only thing I can think of is that in the 1280's and 1330's or 40's trade through Baghdad and across the Middle-East was difficult owing to the warfare that plagued the region.


The third route passes into Persia via Hormuz. European merchants tend to cluster in Cyprus and Little Armenia to service it in OTL although I guess a case could be made for the Levant if the Il-Khans are playing ball. Really, this is the natural route ceteris parabis for trade.

I think this would probably be the most profitable route, because Persia has been peaceful for over a hundred years and the center of one of the world's richest kingdoms.

The fourth route (and largely unimportant route) passes through Genoa, the Crimea and is the route that Marco Polo used. It only worked when the Mongols had united the steppes to a tolerable extent and when the other two routes were infeasible for European trade. This final route was only ever the fall-back and wasn't otherwise profitable.

The Steppes were unified for forty years, 1295-1335, but of course 25 years later things have changed. Sooo, I'm not completely sure about this one, it probably used to be profitable especially when Egypt was in a civil war.
 
Yui108 said:
Hmm. Well it seems that this route never would have gained primacy, because the Crusader States never collapsed, but Alexandria and the Red Sea would probably major ports of trade now due to their ease of access for the Italian traders because it is owned by Jerusalem.

Okay, that's fair enough. So, this route is open but sub-optimal owing to Muslim piracy (and there would be plenty of that) and the simple fact that the route itself is sub-optimal in terms of navigability and ease of use.

Yui108 said:
Venice is largely dominant on the Red Sea, while the Genoese have a strong presence in Alexandria.

That doesn't make sense: you can't have one dominating one leg and the other dominating the other part. And what do you mean by presence? Have the Crusaders done away with the local merchants?

Yui108 said:
Ok that probably would be a profitable route. The only thing I can think of is that in the 1280's and 1330's or 40's trade through Baghdad and across the Middle-East was difficult owing to the warfare that plagued the region.

So a relatively stronger Mesopotamia at the expense of Egypt, with a stronger Bagdhad, Basra, Hormuz, Muscat, Cambay and Calicut. But a relatively weaker Alexandria, Cairo, Jidda, Aden and Quilon. I guess we could have penetration by Italian merchants in the carry trade into Mesopotamia. Personally, I find that unlikely considering the relatively recent wars.

Yui108 said:
I think this would probably be the most profitable route, because Persia has been peaceful for over a hundred years and the center of one of the world's richest kingdoms.

Okay, so definitely a strong Hormuz, Cambay and Calicut. Much weaker Quilon. Next question: is this able to flow into Mesopotamia and then into the Levant or does it need to go out through Trebizond?

Yui108 said:
The Steppes were unified for forty years, 1295-1335, but of course 25 years later things have changed. Sooo, I'm not completely sure about this one, it probably used to be profitable especially when Egypt was in a civil war.

Not really an issue then.
 
As far as the venetians and Genoese go, the venetians used to far and away dominate the Trade in the levant bUt the Genoese have made headway and basically vica versatile in the aegean and the black sea. Perhaps my choice of words was poor, of course the local merchants are still there. The venetians dominate on the red sea because that was in Jerusalem longer, but the Genoese have more concessions in Alexandria because at that time the venetians were pretty busy in the X crusade. Oh and to your second question I think a flow through Mesopotamia is plausible, because the realatively good relationship between the illgan and the military dictator of west mespotamia and some other assorted stuff
 
You jus gotta have balls, it's not that hard.
 
Here are 2 maps of India that may help:

indiain1236.jpg


indiain1398.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom