|
Post by TheCreator on Feb 1, 2016 5:32:35 GMT
I think you spelled that wrong. I corrected it:
|
|
|
Post by Atrox on Feb 1, 2016 6:29:02 GMT
I think you spelled that wrong. I corrected it: ... evolution4weαk, I think you should start building your defenses...
|
|
Skyguy98
Spacefaring
Lord of the Skies (pic found by atrox)
Posts: 1,637
|
Post by Skyguy98 on Feb 1, 2016 6:32:46 GMT
Now now, we don't know that yet... But I do recommend building a military.
|
|
|
Post by evolution4weαk on Feb 1, 2016 13:15:30 GMT
Now now, we don't know that yet... But I do recommend building a military. Im dead.... I guess it war with Thrive(TheCreator)
|
|
|
Post by StealthStyleL on Feb 1, 2016 17:07:57 GMT
ZERG RUSH Tribal Edition Don't remind me of the atrocities committed in Dungpit Valley!
|
|
|
Post by StealthStyleL on Feb 3, 2016 17:50:40 GMT
So just out of interest, NickTheNick, do you know what the rest of our world looks like or do you make it up as you go along? If you do know, do you know what's going on there?
|
|
|
Post by NickTheNick on Feb 3, 2016 18:09:12 GMT
Yes, and I am also keeping track of what goes on in these other parts as well, but not nearly in as much detail as with what happens with the players. However, as NPCs in the other parts of the world get into closer contact with you guys, I give them more attention and even make votes for them. Examples of this are the Cassanites, Ascari, and Navapra, who all didn't even exist (or were not discovered by you guys) several rounds ago. There may also now be more NPCs coming into the picture, seeing as aquos is taking over an emerging tribe near the Ascari.
|
|
|
Post by NickTheNick on Feb 5, 2016 23:47:23 GMT
If no one else sends in a tribe/civ history, StealthStyleL wins the bonus vote for next round. And if no one sends in their own rendition of the world map, TheCreator wins the bonus vote for next round. I'll award the bonus votes in 24 hours.
|
|
Skyguy98
Spacefaring
Lord of the Skies (pic found by atrox)
Posts: 1,637
|
Post by Skyguy98 on Feb 6, 2016 0:06:54 GMT
I've been meaning to get to that, if I don't in time though it's fine
|
|
|
Post by TheCreator on Feb 6, 2016 2:18:28 GMT
I'd really prefer it if no-one sent in their maps (and yes, that was a threat).
|
|
|
Post by evolution4weαk on Feb 6, 2016 2:22:31 GMT
well,i do have a map....
|
|
|
Post by NickTheNick on Feb 6, 2016 22:44:16 GMT
TheCreator and StealthStyleL, you guys both get a bonus vote each. Vote by today and the next round will be up by tonight.
|
|
|
Post by StealthStyleL on Feb 8, 2016 19:50:48 GMT
NickTheNickHow will cartography work? If I ask to map an area will you provide a map?
|
|
|
Post by NickTheNick on Feb 8, 2016 20:06:50 GMT
NickTheNick How will cartography work? If I ask to map an area will you provide a map? If you vote for mapmaking and successfully get it, then you can make a vote to send out explorers to map a certain region. The region could be your civilization's extent, or just the area around the rivers you live by, or a map from the rivers to the edge of the Notrean Plain. It could take one vote, or it could take multiple, based on various conditions. When you successfully complete a mapping mission, I will provide you with a map via PM. It probably won't be very accurate, but you'll have all the rest of history until GPS Satellites to fix the mistakes. You can trade maps with other players, and try to piece separate maps together to create a unified world map. You can also send out explorers to map things besides geography, such as native plants and animals, climate, population density, ore deposits, etc. New technologies will allow for new specific map types to be created. The prerequisite to map-making is writing, because I dare you to keep an oral map of a region in your head. However, weaving and/or papyrus/paper would make map-making much easier, and map trading much easier as well.
|
|
|
Post by StealthStyleL on Feb 8, 2016 20:12:39 GMT
Hmm, sounds cool. The cartography achievement shall be mine!
|
|
|
Post by Aquos on Feb 9, 2016 9:29:04 GMT
NickTheNick i have also a question : how will weapon 'specification' (if that's even the right word) work ? for an example say i have normal swords but i want long swords and/or short swords how will this work ? (sorry if this is a stupid question)
|
|
|
Post by NickTheNick on Feb 9, 2016 18:47:58 GMT
Weapon specialization will come with a successful vote for that weapon automatically. So for example if you successfully vote for swords, your people will make swords of different lengths so you can assume there will be some short swords and long swords included. Soldiers who equip swords will equip any of these that are available to them. However, if you want to specify which ones they use, then you usually will need to vote for that. An instance I can think of in which it would be useful to specifically vote in preference of short or long swords would be if you wanted to create a specific class of soldiers with a specific set of equipment in which either a short or long sword is important to their role (such as short swords with legionnaires in Ancient Rome). You can also vote to create new specializations, such as curved swords. Or you could vote to make your craftsmen mostly produce a certain type of sword.
However, a lot of this will happen naturally, and doesn't need to be voted for, so I wouldn't vote for it unless it's necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Moopli on Feb 24, 2016 3:56:31 GMT
Some armchair analysis: Every state so far seems very decentralized -- there aren't really systems to ensure central control over even the most fundamental of state activities, maintaining peace and control (ie, the military). Crouton, the most centralized example, has a standing army of trained and armed fighters, but seems to have no method of actually imposing its will upon them . Early states asserted their authority mainly through controlling food and weapons -- with an army that serves as a strongman for tax collectors, and the army kept in check by having army leaders be close friends/family/etc, and having army provisions (both food and weapons) centrally-controlled. Right now, it seems like Crouton warrior-bands could just form their own petty fiefs (heck, they already are) and nobody can do a thing about it. I think the way to centralize here is multifaceted, so it might not be too easy to translate into game actions, but here are some things I can think of:
1) decide whether or not raiding bands can claim a village they plunder as their own land, and make it a policy that the rest of your expansionary policy revolves around. If you decide yes, then you'll have a constant revolving door of recruitment, and every expedition would essentially be to set up a military colony, which you have to be able to integrate and eventually tax just like any other village under your hegemony. If you decide against, then you need a system in place to ensure that military campaigns are more organized than 'raid and plunder and take over these villages'. 2) Make a codex of laws (and maybe taxes as well) that your standing army will be tasked with enforcing 3) that codex could include military laws too, to give structure, hierarchy, etc, to your warbands.
So maybe a suitable in-game action would just be to 'codify laws'?
|
|
|
Post by TheCreator on Feb 24, 2016 5:26:07 GMT
Some armchair analysis: Every state so far seems very decentralized -- there aren't really systems to ensure central control over even the most fundamental of state activities, maintaining peace and control (ie, the military). Crouton, the most centralized example, has a standing army of trained and armed fighters, but seems to have no method of actually imposing its will upon them . Early states asserted their authority mainly through controlling food and weapons -- with an army that serves as a strongman for tax collectors, and the army kept in check by having army leaders be close friends/family/etc, and having army provisions (both food and weapons) centrally-controlled. Right now, it seems like Crouton warrior-bands could just form their own petty fiefs (heck, they already are) and nobody can do a thing about it. I think the way to centralize here is multifaceted, so it might not be too easy to translate into game actions, but here are some things I can think of: 1) decide whether or not raiding bands can claim a village they plunder as their own land, and make it a policy that the rest of your expansionary policy revolves around. If you decide yes, then you'll have a constant revolving door of recruitment, and every expedition would essentially be to set up a military colony, which you have to be able to integrate and eventually tax just like any other village under your hegemony. If you decide against, then you need a system in place to ensure that military campaigns are more organized than 'raid and plunder and take over these villages'. 2) Make a codex of laws (and maybe taxes as well) that your standing army will be tasked with enforcing 3) that codex could include military laws too, to give structure, hierarchy, etc, to your warbands. So maybe a suitable in-game action would just be to 'codify laws'? Well, for my next turn (whenever that will be) I was planning on developing paper and roads. The turn after that, I actually wanted to create a legal system with three branches, with the common people being judges and the emperor using the army to enforce the laws.
|
|
|
Post by StealthStyleL on Mar 3, 2016 20:12:07 GMT
Just to keep busy, NickTheNick which of us controls the largest geographical territory? Also, do you guys think rhinos would be a good war mount? One last thing, the past policies for my civ are wrong. It's Acirema's past policies.
|
|