STGOD?

[KlavoHunter]

Behold, TankSharp!

[Academia Nut]

Oh yes, to the leader of the French, as a minor background detail, did your nation have a Louis XIV (or perhaps even more generally, some sort of charismatic autocratic leader in the mid to late 17th century)?

[The Cleric]

I don't see why not. I'm trying to find a way around the French Revolution though; or at least a way through the mess at the end of it.

@ Havoc. How does the existence of your empire effect Catholicism?

[Academia Nut]

Cool. Because I was thinking of having one of my Mughal Padshahs sending one of his sons or grandsons on a world tour in the late 17th century and the prince spending some time in the Sun King's court where he picks up a few tips and tricks on how to centralize authority.

As for the French Revolution, well, wasn't one of the big reasons for triggering it because the monarchy was nearly backrupt from excessive war making and thus they had to call in the Estates so that they could raise additional funds, which let a whole lot of issues break free? If maybe they didn't get into as many wars in the 18th century the French might not be in the same situation financially so they wouldn't need to let democracy get a foot in the door at the same time they were broke. Somehow deal with the issues more slowly instead of letting them erupt all at once in a violent revolution.

[frigidmagi]

@ Havoc. How does the existence of your empire effect Catholicism?

Well the Pope will not be in Rome, but the majority of Rome remains christian. The reason the Pope is not in Rome as to do with the Roman government and the Pope's own power base.

Basically Cleric, if you so desire you could have the Pope in Avigon if not I've found an alternate home for him.

[Slacker]

Well, Central Europe is certainly going to be a very different place in the 17th and 18th centuries-Russia's far, far away from the centers of European power, for one thing, for another to a certain extent Sweden-Poland is a 900 pound gorilla in the room. A generally peaceful one, but the sheer military power of the the two combined, especially in the mid-to-late 17th century, would probably seriously change things downstream. I did basically take Europe's largest land power in the 1600s and give it the two things it was lacking-consistent civilian leadership and a navy. That's going to change how the land around France is, which means the French might not find themselves in as many wars.

[SirNitram]

I apologize to get this far and drop, but the spark is gone. I formally withdraw from the STGOD.

[Steve]

:sad:

Sorry to hear that Nit. I'm sure you would've been fun to play with.

[The Cleric]

Can you now reveal what that equatorial strip was for?

[General Havoc]

Sorry to hear that Nit.

And Frigid, the Avignon Papacy was my original POD, but if Cleric wants the pope he's gonna have to have moved on from Avignon since then, as Avignon is in Provence, which Rome took over in the 16th century.

[rhoenix]

I'm sorry to see you go Nitram, but I still say it would've been awesome to have rocket soldiers from Antactica. And not just because I was very curious as to the effects of military-grade cannabis on their flying.

In any case, I've not yet spent my points, and will be working out some of the conceptuals first - once those are done, spending points would be easy.

[Steve]

No point in spending points until our system is confirmed.

Having some NPCs would be interesting, I must say.

[Hadrianvs]

As for the French Revolution, well, wasn't one of the big reasons for triggering it because the monarchy was nearly backrupt from excessive war making and thus they had to call in the Estates so that they could raise additional funds, which let a whole lot of issues break free? If maybe they didn't get into as many wars in the 18th century the French might not be in the same situation financially so they wouldn't need to let democracy get a foot in the door at the same time they were broke. Somehow deal with the issues more slowly instead of letting them erupt all at once in a violent revolution.

Actually the main reason for the Revolution was that the King was a ruthless modernizer who dismantled the old (merchantilistic) social order in favour of a new (capitalistic) one. In simple terms this was in the interest of the burgers and the more merchant-inclined nobility, but against the interests of the peasantry and landed nobility. When push came to shove the burgers expected the king to side with them, as they were by then natural allies. However, his failure to fully grasp the full ramifications of his policies caused the King to instead side with his traditional allies, the Church and landed nobility. So the burgers hijacked the anger of the peasantry and took charge of the situation themselves.

Ultimately a King exists to hoard food in times of plenty and distribute it in times of famine, that's what distinguishes him from a warlord or a despot. King Louis XVII dismantled France's social safety at the behest of Enlightenment-influenced advisers, who convinced him that doing so would make his nation prosperous. Instead it made his nation hungry, and the King lost his head.

Unequal tax burden didn't help matters, obviously, but it was an aggravating issue rather than the chief cause.

As it is, however, it would be nice to have some sort of Napoleonic Wars in our world history. Just because a Great Continental War in Europe is something every history needs.

Having some NPCs would be interesting, I must say.

There damned better well be NPCs. How else are the great powers going to have proxy wars?

[Steve]

As for the French Revolution, well, wasn't one of the big reasons for triggering it because the monarchy was nearly backrupt from excessive war making and thus they had to call in the Estates so that they could raise additional funds, which let a whole lot of issues break free? If maybe they didn't get into as many wars in the 18th century the French might not be in the same situation financially so they wouldn't need to let democracy get a foot in the door at the same time they were broke. Somehow deal with the issues more slowly instead of letting them erupt all at once in a violent revolution.

Actually the main reason for the Revolution was that the King was a ruthless modernizer who dismantled the old (merchantilistic) social order in favour of a new (capitalistic) one. In simple terms this was in the interest of the burgers and the more merchant-inclined nobility, but against the interests of the peasantry and landed nobility. When push came to shove the burgers expected the king to side with them, as they were by then natural allies. However, his failure to fully grasp the full ramifications of his policies caused the King to instead side with his traditional allies, the Church and landed nobility. So the burgers hijacked the anger of the peasantry and took charge of the situation themselves.

Ultimately a King exists to hoard food in times of plenty and distribute it in times of famine, that's what distinguishes him from a warlord or a despot. King Louis XVII dismantled France's social safety at the behest of Enlightenment-influenced advisers, who convinced him that doing so would make his nation prosperous. Instead it made his nation hungry, and the King lost his head.

Unequal tax burden didn't help matters, obviously, but it was an aggravating issue rather than the chief cause.

As it is, however, it would be nice to have some sort of Napoleonic Wars in our world history. Just because a Great Continental War in Europe is something every history needs.

Having some NPCs would be interesting, I must say.

There damned better well be NPCs. How else are the great powers going to have proxy wars?

Unfortunately SDNW3 has no NPCs save Switzerland and Afghanistan.

[rhoenix]

No point in spending points until our system is confirmed.

That works. I'll quit trying to rush, then.

Having some NPCs would be interesting, I must say.

Indeed. Great and noble GM, please give us the nation of Antarctican Bioshock-esque Rocket Men as NPC's!

[Hadrianvs]

Unfortunately SDNW3 has no NPCs save Switzerland and Afghanistan.

Aren't you glad you joined this game, then?

[Slacker]

I mentioned this in chat, and I'll repeat it here-I suggest we get one or two more players, to fill out a couple GP-level guys, and start, after filling the remainder of the map in with NPCs. I think we'll avoid the PC-wargasm that'd occur, and the bitchfest that'd result, if we literally filled the world with NPCs.

[Hadrianvs]

I mentioned this in chat, and I'll repeat it here-I suggest we get one or two more players, to fill out a couple GP-level guys, and start, after filling the remainder of the map in with NPCs. I think we'll avoid the PC-wargasm that'd occur, and the bitchfest that'd result, if we literally filled the world with NPCs.

Well certainly a good portion of my planned schemes rely on the existence of NPCs. This would be fun because we could have wars starting like they do in real life: a slow build-up over many years as a few great powers fight over several minor ones.

[Slacker]

Can we get an updated map? We settle on Canada? I'll also take the chunk of Africa between my two already-existing claims, just makes things easier.

I'd recommend we consider leaving our African claims relatively small, a Race for Africa might be a fun thing to throw in.

[frigidmagi]

I'm typing this coming home form work and I'm hungry and cranky so if this sounds rough don't take it personal.

There damned better well be NPCs. How else are the great powers going to have proxy wars?

There will be PC's and I'll be in charge of making them. Currently I'm waiting for the rule system to be hashed out, we're having a vote in the rule thread so if you read this head over to it and vote. I'll be closing the vote at 1:30am Sunday, AZ time USA. My thanks to those who have voted.

Now I'm open to NPC ideas, and parts of the world are gonna be left gray as "tribal zones." If anyone screams at me they had better be someone with colonies.

I mentioned this in chat, and I'll repeat it here-I suggest we get one or two more players, to fill out a couple GP-level guys, and start, after filling the remainder of the map in with NPCs. I think we'll avoid the PC-wargasm that'd occur, and the bitchfest that'd result, if we literally filled the world with NPCs.

You know I've been running pretty far and wide to get players, I've exhausted my list. So Slacker if you want more players. You go get them. Just about everyone I could grab has already told me no or has joined. To help in that I will open up Europe to one, One new player who must take at least a 3 in colonies. I'm being a dick, but there is alot of gray to fill up. I would prefer Asia, South America or Africa however.

But hey, just to show that I'm not all snarls and demands.

Mappy Map

[Steve]

You know, if nobody else takes Britain it would be interesting to have an occasion where Britain fell apart in an 1860s-1870s civil war caused by an altered line of inheritance (maybe no Victoria, and Ernst August became King, then over his reign and that of a successor's the monarchy's attempts to hold power in a conservative fashion led to... problems). We could then have an independent Ireland, England, Scotland, maybe in Wales, and I could segue it nicely into the rise of Pacifica (settlers fleeing the war moving to the lands of Pacifica, Australia and New Zealand's colonial populations aligning with Pacifica for help with native uprisings and such).

Various European powers could also vie for influence in the old British Isles. Maybe the Vasa are supporting Ireland, the French have renewed the Auld Alliance with Scotland, Russia or Rome are friendly and maybe allied with England proper, etc.

[Slacker]

You know I've been running pretty far and wide to get players, I've exhausted my list. So Slacker if you want more players. You go get them. Just about everyone I could grab has already told me no or has joined. To help in that I will open up Europe to one, One new player who must take at least a 3 in colonies. I'm being a dick, but there is alot of gray to fill up. I would prefer Asia, South America or Africa however.

I wasn't implying that you guys weren't somehow being exhaustive your efforts, merely that we shouldn't kill ourselves filling in the entire map. I've got a couple of potential nibbles, but noone's given me anything really more than a 'hrm, interesting' yet. Now with Great Britain open, well, maybe. I'll prod the best candidate again today and see if I can lure him in.

[Hadrianvs]

I suggest the person with Argentina-Chile go ahead and take Uruguay. Not only is there a lot of nice beach-front property, it also gives a bit strategic depth north of Buenos Aires. In real life, Brazil and Argentina spent much of the 19th century having a cold war over the place. It's independent because neither country would stand for the other annexing it. Guess who's not on the border to complain in this time line?

[KlavoHunter]

The island of Timor is open once again to anyone who feels the urge to stick their nose into the region, if they're sufficiently brave. Or maybe I'll just eat it.

[Steve]

The island of Timor is open once again to anyone who feels the urge to stick their nose into the region, if they're sufficiently brave. Or maybe I'll just eat it.

In the immortal words of Larfleeze aka Agent Orange....


MINE!!!