While We Wait: The Next Generation

[Thlayli]

I'm getting all nostalgic like!

Happy birthday NESing.

Ahhh. Bon retour, this forum needs more French!

 

[Abaddon]

I'm vaguely thinking about joining another (non-FFH) NES, does anyone have any sugestions? I had a quick look through the forum and in honesty there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of choice right now. Are there any in particular that I should look at?

How many NES are even running at the moment

 

[orangelex44]

Well, in the FFHNES genre we have four that are either about to start or active. Other than that, no idea - something like another six or seven, maybe?

 

[Northen Wolf]

MilarNES: Birth of A Civilization is NES.
BirdNES is worth to look at. (is more complex than MilarNES)

Those are few NES'es that have been recommended before...

 

[Thlayli]

N3S is great, if you don't mind the slower pace.

 

[Kal'thzar]

N3S is great, if you don't mind the slower pace.

It does make evil cackling hard due to loss of oxygen though

Awesome nes though.

 

[Ninja Dude]

Go update NDNESIII.

Eh. If my next project doesn't work out, I might try another GodNES, Heck, I might even allow the player from Clash of Gods to reclaim their old Gods. But I'd seriously need to put more thought into the rules. Regulating a god's abilities is somewhat difficult.

 

[Luckymoose]

Eh. If my next project doesn't work out, I might try another GodNES, Heck, I might even allow the player from Clash of Gods to reclaim their old Gods. But I'd seriously need to put more thought into the rules. Regulating a god's abilities is somewhat difficult.

I played with a very limited power set. Don't blame me.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Technically, the stoppage of NDNESIII was Vode's ultimate victory.

 

[Abaddon]

Let Chao's reign!

 

[Ninja Dude]

Man, nothing I'm in is updating.

So, about how much longer do you think people will be complaining about the name Diascia or whatever in BirdNES 3?

 

[North King]

Sorry, I would update, but you know, I don't want to ruin my social life even more than I already have.

 

[Abaddon]

<--is waiting in HexNES to update, so he doesn't have to explain how the "NES" part of Ab-HEX-NotW-NES-Thing works too much

<--Would also like a major for Ab-HEX-NotW-NES-Thing, that guy gets the deciding vote on the "Who shall we bomb today" vote, why did noone dive right in!

 

[Ninja Dude]

Sorry, I would update, but you know, I don't want to ruin my social life even more than I already have.

Social life is overrated. And besides, all I need from you are stats. Put those up and you could repair your social life as much as you want for all I care.

But seriously, it's getting difficult to figure out who is weaker than me in N3S. I need to assert my superiority over someone.

 

[North King]

Krato is probably still stronger than most everyone around it, including Moti.

Though I'm not exactly going to provide stats for the Dulama yet.

 

[Thlayli]

But seriously, it's getting difficult to figure out who is weaker than me in N3S. I need to assert my superiority over someone.

Krato's yet to assert its' superiority over ANYONE, so far its' gotten beaten up by the Satar and supplied the conscripts for the Moti force that finally defeated them.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Hubris remains fun, regardless of details.

 

[Masada]

Huh, that is the best argument for putting a population stat in that I have ever seen (I did know that population rather than land was the constraining factor in many regions, but for some reason never quite fitted those pieces together). I may have to do that now. Thanks a lot.

The key is some regions. It's difficult in the extreme to pick appropriate areas at different times. I also use it call Euro-centrism on Diamond.

Alright, what about Assyria and maybe some of the earlier Mesopotamian city-states? There are some Mandala-type patterns there as well (the waxing and waning empire, the heightened importance of trade and of the relatively few and thus more significant routes of communication, having to rule more or less through local vassals at least early on - especially in Sumeria, where city-states worked more or less like in Mesoamerica, (apparently) South-East Asia and the Rice Coast in your NES).

The four factors that define a Mandala (or anti-Europe) type setup tend to be a priori

1. A lack of fixed borders;
2. A lack of a centralized administration and corresponding professional bureaucrats;
3. A lack of a taxation system;
4. A lack of a clear dynastic succession amongst an identified royal family.

I tend to believe that Mesopotamia does comply with this setup. I'm not aware of the specific economic situation however. Except for four, which it complies with only part of the time. Although the terrestrial limits for population movement are the major issue I have with this particular interpretation. To wit, the population was not fluid, therefore the pronounced and endemic Mandala decentralization was not a permanent facet of existence insofar as the population (the primary factor) could not relocate whenever it felt like it for instance to avoid an oppressive government. It only occurred when population distribution was such that centralization was impractical. The limited agrarian space also mitigated in the long run against continuing decentralization. Nevertheless, with population as the dominant factor (it's probably possible to pick a point of departure away from that as well for instance by the presence of a series of short lived conquests by separate conquerors followed by a successful consolidation in the form of a dynastic succession would be the obvious breaking point) it is possible to infer some quite useful things. Some of which I've elucidated on earlier WWW posts (page 80 and backwards).

Although it must be stressed, that most regions had population as a dominant constraining factor for some portion of their history, Das has highlighted Europe during the Dark Ages as a likely candidate I tend to concur with that. The Mandala style setup and the dominance of population as a factor are by no means mutually exclusive (colonial America had population as the dominant factor for quite some time Re: Heckscher-Ohlin model). When both occur however you tend to end up with decentralization and 'anarchy' to western and eastern chroniclers like the situation in the steppes for instance.

Anyway, interpersonal relations are a big deal everywhere in the Middle Ages, aren't they? Bigger in some places and some times than elsewhere and elsewhen, but still, that would be a defining trait of the period.

They are the result not the cause. The interpersonal relationships are only important because of the lack of centralization bought on by the lack of population and the need to dominate population centers instead of just land. With land you just have to deal with cows and cant tolerate idiots; with people you need to do with idiots and they can't tolerate idiots, if that helps explain the difference. The defining trait is the lack of population relative to land and the extreme decentralization which eventuated because of that.

Also, I am glad you just provided another justification/explanation for my Grandeur stat. When war and bureaucracy are not as viable for whatever reason, factors of prestige come to the foreground.

Quite. When bureaucracy isn't functional and binding you with briars, then you really have no one to rely on but yourself

*

Related note: does this make sense to people?

 

[Angst]

It makes sense to me, and I would like to add that it's the reason why WWW is so awesome sometimes.

Btw, I'm "near completion" on my update.

 

[das]

The key is some regions. It's difficult in the extreme to pick appropriate areas at different times. I also use it call Euro-centrism on Diamond.

As you said, the problem is that it's not really European at all (Europeans have had other mentalities in the past, and there are other regions outside of Europe that can perhaps exemplify it better at times). It's more Imperial Eurasian or Hyperterritorial Statist Eurasian (or maybe it should be called the Path of the Reckless Elephant or the Human Anthill State?), since it has more to do with current demographics and social formations ( ) than with any particular region or for that matter time (and the cultural sensibilities that you mentioned proceed from it rather than the other way around).

3. A lack of a taxation system;

You mentioned Srivijaya, but what about the other states? Srivijaya sort of is the Carthage of the (South-)East. Others might have different attitudes. Though ofcourse Pirenne aside Dark Age taxation is barely a system, so I suppose that doesn't count or merely means that Dark Age European states were semi-Mandalas.

Except for four, which it complies with only part of the time.

I would think that two would be the bigger deal? I'm far from sure about Mesopotamian succession (as opposed to Egyptian succession), anyway, but it was reasonably chaotic. Or did you mean the dynastic instability, as in Iron Age Babylon?

The interpersonal relationships are only important because of the lack of centralization bought on by the lack of population and the need to dominate population centers instead of just land. With land you just have to deal with cows and cant tolerate idiots; with people you need to do with idiots and they can't tolerate idiots, if that helps explain the difference. The defining trait is the lack of population relative to land and the extreme decentralization which eventuated because of that.

15th century Muscovy was hyper-centralised and still relied a lot on interpersonal relations, though I suppose that's more a case of history in flux (the population was rather low, especially if you touch upon density, but on the other hand the assorted feudals were way too numerous and multiplying, hence the many if not all the bad things that happened in the 16th century).