Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LOTE-L] East Asia has bigger empires

Expand Messages
  • thomash@throneworld.com
    This is an old, old rule - and one that I ve always intended to replace with a nation-specific calculation based on all of the national stats (government type,
    Message 1 of 6 , May 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      This is an old, old rule - and one that I've always intended to
      replace with a nation-specific calculation based on all of the
      national stats (government type, culture, etc. with a modifier thrown
      in for GeoZone) to move away from the "fixed rule"

      --
      Thomas Harlan
      thomash@...
      http://www.throneworld.com


      >

      > "10.2.1.1 Changing the Imperial Size Divisor
      > Nations in Central Asia, China, Japan and India can
      > achieve a Size Divisor of five (5) if the conditions in the next
      > section are achieved. Nations in the rest of the world can
      > achieve a Size Divisor of four (4) if they meet the same
      > conditions.
      > By default nations in Central Asia, China, Japan and
      > India have a Size Devisor of four (4), while everyone else has
      > a Size Devisor of three (3)."
      >
      >
      > Rules like this really bother me.
      >
      > I'm not complaining about the historical accuracy.
      >
      > I'm complaining about the lack of imagination as to why the historical
      > reality represented by this rule came into existance, and how it might
      > best be described by something other than this (in my mind, silly)
      > special case.
      >
      > *why* were the empires of the east bigger, at lower tech levels?
      >
      > *why* shouldn't other empires be capable of emulating this, under the
      > correct circumstances?
      >
      >
      > I'm going to fall back on Guns, Germs, and Steel, here, and cite
      > geography. Europe (etc.) were too hard for one person to conquer, so
      > the empires there were smaller. This is a reality of geography, not a
      > difference of political organization between humans in different parts
      > of the world. If the rules don't simulate this well, then the
      > *combat" and *logistics* rules are flawed, and should be fixed. This
      > "patch" of a rule is, well, embarassing.
      >
      > One man's opinion.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Matthew Taylor
      Admitting that I am making a gross over-simplification, one key difference between the ancient and classical east and west is how the individual is viewed.
      Message 2 of 6 , May 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Admitting that I am making a gross over-simplification, one key
        difference between the ancient and classical east and west is how the
        individual is viewed. Very generally speaking, the eastern societies
        that produced vast empires tended toward philosophies where the
        individual is less important than the society, while the west at
        times took a more balanced view, perhaps as a legacy from Hellenistic
        culture. When combined with geography, specifically the long rivers
        of china and india which enhanced control (via communications and
        irrigation) without being barriers to movement or conquest vs. the
        rivers and mountains of Europe which formed natural barriers to state
        formation, you got very large water empires in the east and very
        small feudal (read mutual, if not equal obligation relationship
        based) ones in the west.

        For those not familiar with water empires, in areas of irregular or
        sparse rainfall, river irrigation was often controlled by the state,
        which ment the state could cut it off and starve its enemies. In the
        European west the rain fell on everyone, king, lord, and peasant
        alike. The King had to rely on other means of control.

        How could this be handled in lote without an IS multiple by geozone
        rule? We could make C2 regions cost less in IS load, representing
        the irrigation effect (yes, this makes the rich get richer) and make
        cities in those regions cost less in IS as well.

        We could give an IS bonus to Caste societies, covering those
        societies that elevate society over individual.

        We could raise the bar for Imperial Government and then give such
        governments more efficient Infra.

        Comments?

        Matthew

        On May 1, 2007, at 2:12 PM, thomash@... wrote:

        > This is an old, old rule - and one that I've always intended to
        > replace with a nation-specific calculation based on all of the
        > national stats (government type, culture, etc. with a modifier thrown
        > in for GeoZone) to move away from the "fixed rule"
        >
        > --
        > Thomas Harlan
        > thomash@...
        > http://www.throneworld.com
        >
        > >
        >
        > > "10.2.1.1 Changing the Imperial Size Divisor
        > > Nations in Central Asia, China, Japan and India can
        > > achieve a Size Divisor of five (5) if the conditions in the next
        > > section are achieved. Nations in the rest of the world can
        > > achieve a Size Divisor of four (4) if they meet the same
        > > conditions.
        > > By default nations in Central Asia, China, Japan and
        > > India have a Size Devisor of four (4), while everyone else has
        > > a Size Devisor of three (3)."
        > >
        > >
        > > Rules like this really bother me.
        > >
        > > I'm not complaining about the historical accuracy.
        > >
        > > I'm complaining about the lack of imagination as to why the
        > historical
        > > reality represented by this rule came into existance, and how it
        > might
        > > best be described by something other than this (in my mind, silly)
        > > special case.
        > >
        > > *why* were the empires of the east bigger, at lower tech levels?
        > >
        > > *why* shouldn't other empires be capable of emulating this, under
        > the
        > > correct circumstances?
        > >
        > >
        > > I'm going to fall back on Guns, Germs, and Steel, here, and cite
        > > geography. Europe (etc.) were too hard for one person to conquer, so
        > > the empires there were smaller. This is a reality of geography,
        > not a
        > > difference of political organization between humans in different
        > parts
        > > of the world. If the rules don't simulate this well, then the
        > > *combat" and *logistics* rules are flawed, and should be fixed. This
        > > "patch" of a rule is, well, embarassing.
        > >
        > > One man's opinion.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
      • Avid Gamer
        ... Exactly. Rainfall is key. It also postpones the decline of productivity (seen in the Middle East) from human agricultural activity. Rain vs. Rivers (well,
        Message 3 of 6 , May 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Matthew Taylor <matthewstaylor@...> wrote:

          > Admitting that I am making a gross
          > over-simplification, one key
          > difference between the ancient and classical east
          > and west is how the
          > individual is viewed. Very generally speaking, the
          > eastern societies
          > that produced vast empires tended toward
          > philosophies where the
          > individual is less important than the society, while
          > the west at
          > times took a more balanced view, perhaps as a legacy
          > from Hellenistic
          > culture. When combined with geography, specifically
          > the long rivers
          > of china and india which enhanced control (via
          > communications and
          > irrigation) without being barriers to movement or
          > conquest vs. the
          > rivers and mountains of Europe which formed natural
          > barriers to state
          > formation, you got very large water empires in the
          > east and very
          > small feudal (read mutual, if not equal obligation
          > relationship
          > based) ones in the west.
          >
          > For those not familiar with water empires, in areas
          > of irregular or
          > sparse rainfall, river irrigation was often
          > controlled by the state,
          > which ment the state could cut it off and starve its
          > enemies. In the
          > European west the rain fell on everyone, king, lord,
          > and peasant
          > alike. The King had to rely on other means of
          > control.


          Exactly.

          Rainfall is key. It also postpones the decline of
          productivity (seen in the Middle East) from human
          agricultural activity.

          Rain vs. Rivers (well, irrigation).



          >
          > How could this be handled in lote without an IS
          > multiple by geozone
          > rule? We could make C2 regions cost less in IS
          > load, representing
          > the irrigation effect (yes, this makes the rich get
          > richer) and make
          > cities in those regions cost less in IS as well.


          The C2 effect seems to be a little bit exaggerated
          already. Not sure of that, tho. C2 regions
          historically were *really* important, but most
          important to ancients, and increasingly less important
          as technology improved.



          >
          > We could give an IS bonus to Caste societies,
          > covering those
          > societies that elevate society over individual.


          Ooo. Very clever. A nice game effect, too.



          >
          > We could raise the bar for Imperial Government and
          > then give such
          > governments more efficient Infra.


          Again, a nice confluence of game balance and
          rationale.



          >
          > Comments?
          >
          > Matthew


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • David Adams
          I m impressed! Of the $5.00 nations, only 4 have not been taken (not counting the chinese locked in mortal combat - those have been taken by ghost writers).
          Message 4 of 6 , May 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm impressed! Of the $5.00 nations, only 4 have not been taken (not
            counting the chinese locked in mortal combat - those have been taken
            by ghost writers).

            Grand Duchy of Cracow - The largest cavalry force in Europe held by
            these Bochnia Poles.

            Tonkin - Southern China DF survivor. Several regions waiting to be
            scooped back up - previously a top 10 nation.

            The Gatotkaca of Angora - originally a asiatic pagan horde, settled
            in Burma and merged with the military of the Indonesians. A
            fascinating nation, expanding into Borneo and Australia.

            The Almoravid Emirate of Benitogo - originally the diplomatic
            collective of the gold coast by Islamic Iberians, taking one of the
            highest technological aspects in order to spread West to South
            America and South around the Cape of Good Hope...

            http://www.throneworld.com/lords/lote10/newopen.htm

            There are also 5-10 nations that will only cost $2.50 per turn -
            excellent training grounds including 3 Hordes, a NEW merchant house
            in the South America, and a large nation on the Great Lakes and upper
            Mississippi.

            Lords X - 1570 AD
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.