|
AdventFalls posted:I just thought it fitting considering this is a Rome LP. People can take the bits of mine they like. The other parts were fine, and while I see the good intent behind it the whole thing just seemed too Draka-ish. An Anti-Rome nation isn't a bad idea, but could do something to seem less... well, unfortunately similar to that headache of an alternate history. Jewish Madagascar especially is an interesting idea and can make a sort of sense with the help of everyone's favorite Somali Republic. East Africa in general (the areas around the Indian Ocean trade routes, really) should probably get a head's up on things, and a cosmopolitan Jewish Merchant Republic would kinda fit that mold. Though if it survives into Vicky2 and ever ends up Fascist, I demand its name change to the Principality of Zion. 
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
Hah, I wondered if someone would suggest Jewish Madagascar. Anyways,  No complaints with the proposed structure of our party here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
sniper4625 posted:As Executive Vice President of the Unitas Party, I must strongly condemn your attack on our forward thinking precepts.  And what better way to learn Roman ways then to serve under Roman commanders alongside Roman people using Roman Tactics while fighting Rome's enemies, then? And besides, he attacked us first, unprovoked, as well. The very men and women who die to protect him!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
NewMars posted:
I shall let you in on a great secret - I don't actually read much of what my erstwhile leader has to say. I must say I do disagree with his position - if a foreigner wishes to fight for Rome, is it not a sign that they are starting down the path to Romanization? While we should certainly not make the mistakes of the later Roman period, neither should we turn away those willing to fight for her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
sniper4625 posted:I shall let you in on a great secret - I don't actually read much of what my erstwhile leader has to say. I must say I do disagree with his position - if a foreigner wishes to fight for Rome, is it not a sign that they are starting down the path to Romanization? While we should certainly not make the mistakes of the later Roman period, neither should we turn away those willing to fight for her. Do you believe that your leader will honestly be tolerant of your middle ground stance on this issue? And before answering rationally, do remember who you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
I would assume purging the only member of your party would be bad for business. Anyway, my leader frequently does more harm to his cause than help with his hardline extremist positions. Perhaps some moderation is needed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
But... Hardline extremism is the point of UNITAS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Not to mention they've also been a pariah party for a long, long time. I think Unitas is accustomed to bad business, and sticks to its principles out of pride more than anything. I doubt they'll miss having an extra senator if it means preserving the bile they spout on a daily basis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
LJN92 posted:
Given that Unitas consists of 2 people, I think 50% of the people would care. Anyway, as long as Unitas remains the only pro-monocultural Romanization party, this is where I'll stay. Unless some other party adopted that while I wasn't looking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
I am pretty sure that most of the pro-orthodox parties are like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
I am all for Senator Hira's proposed party structure for Monternos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
sniper4625 posted:Given that Unitas consists of 2 people, I think 50% of the people would care. Come now, the Disgusting Odious Unrepentant Xenophobes that truly support party are the ones that will want you gone. But of course, you can stay there, if they'll tolerate you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Wait, no, sorry, I'm wrong. UNITAS is the only party that is pro-monoculture as far as I can see. Which is astounding, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
NewMars posted:
  I was going to say. Our common bonds with our coalition partners are principally with regard to the Orthodox faith, although we do align closely on our evangelical outreach, especially to traditional parts of the Empire. We recognise their desire for a monoculture as their own matter of conscience, and though we are not entirely comfortable with how stridently they state their position, we recognise their freedom to state it. Our coalition is, of necessity, a broad church.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
So as the two leaders of the parties and the representative of the Ecclesiastical Movement caucus in the New Milvian party decided yesterday, the decision regarding matters of New Milvian bureaucracy shall be laid bare here: With respect to proposal-making privileges, membership in New Milvian leadership affords the entitled to a legislative proposal per session should senate rules ever come to restrict the proposal-making privileges of senate members. This is more of a clarification so as to prevent situations such as those in which the senate's legislative proposals might be restrict proposal-making authority to party leaders. In that case all members of New Milvian leadership are to be treated as party leaders in their own right and enjoy the privileges granted through that title. With respect to inner cooperation, a rotational model shall be followed. In that, one of the leaders of the New Milvians in each session shall have the authority to draft legislation, which will then be amended by the other leaders of the New Milvians. The final text of the proposal must receive unanimous approval from New Milvian leadership. Should that be secured it will be presented on the senate floor as a unified Milvian proposal. All members of the New Milvians must then give unconditional support to that proposal on the senate floor. This is a rule in recognition of our differences, in order to provide each member party with a concrete benefit from the New Milvian infrastructure, granting it the ability to push its agenda in time (with the rest of the leadership acting as balancing factors in order to ensure no unified proposal is too out there for the wider New Milvian membership). NewMars posted:
Specifically, UNITAS is pro-monoculture pro-monoreligion, the Faithful are pro-monoreligion only, and the Ecclesiastical Movement is in favour of neither.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
 Her majesty's loyal T.R.A.I.T.O.R.S will ##Join the Inclusionists as a subparty.  Don John waddles away to second breakfast; his farts echo throughout the Senate chamber.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 08:35
|
|
 Oh my, oh my, look at all the new faces! Right, time for some book-keeping here: To my count, the Inclusionists currently number as follows: 4 main Inclusionists, as counted in the last census. 2 Da Qin members, as officially accepted into the family by authority as party leader. 1 Komnenian Restoration member, as officially accepted into the family by authority as party leader. 1 T.R.A.I.T.O.R.S. member, as officially accepted into the family by authority as party leader. Potentially 1 Guiding Light member, as I would like to extend the offer of joining our family to them as well. Depending on the way the Guiding Light decides, that means that the new sub-groups either equal or outnumber the main Inclusionists. With that in mind, here are a few points as far as inter-party shenanigans go: 1. When it comes to inner-party voting, the number of votes coming from main Inclusionists will act as a tiebreaker, if necessary. While it seems somewhat ironic that a tolerant party would adopt such a segregatory policy, it only serves to secure the stability of the core of our party and to ensure our tenets stay strong. 2. Additionally, I, as party leader, reserve myself the right to veto any voting done within the party and posit my own vote as the party's vote, however this will only be done when the vote done by the party directly contradicts what the Inclusionists stand for. Once again, this is a measure that only serves the stability of the party. If we do not stay true to our beliefs, then we have nothing left. 3. I also reserve the seat of party leader for myself until further notice. While I don't wish to be mistrusting here, I do believe that the one that originally wrote the tenets of the Inclusionists is best suited to ensuring they stay that way until we have further established ourselves. Not to mention the only real power I hold is the ability to veto internal votes, and only if they strongly go against our ideas - I think that should be a reasonable precaution. Further points will be established once we figure out the voting system of this new Senate. As for the future plans of the party, we shall wait and see for now. The world is a grand place, after all - we should first survey it to figure out just what our plans should be. We shall reconvene at that time (read, when the mod is finished) and spend the intervening time occasionally spitting in the general direction of Unitas.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:We shall reconvene at that time (read, when the mod is finished) and spend the intervening time occasionally spitting in the general direction of Unitas. I find this distasteful and unbecoming of a party which prides itself on tolerance. If we, whose toleration stretches only as far as cultural issues, can put up with them, then why does the party which prides itself on acceptance have such great difficulty in following their own tenets with regard to the toughest cases? Surely, having the courage of your convictions in the face of strident opposition is the greater path than acceding to the primacy of separation and opposition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 10:55
|
|
AJ_Impy posted:I find this distasteful and unbecoming of a party which prides itself on tolerance. If we, whose toleration stretches only as far as cultural issues, can put up with them, then why does the party which prides itself on acceptance have such great difficulty in following their own tenets with regard to the toughest cases? Surely, having the courage of your convictions in the face of strident opposition is the greater path than acceding to the primacy of separation and opposition. EDIT: To put it bluntly and simply, you can't pull the paradox of tolerance on us. Unitas is a direct threat to our self-preservation and as such can not be tolerated. TheMcD fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
AdventFalls posted:I just thought it fitting considering this is a Rome LP. People can take the bits of mine they like. Sorry to have been so down on it, I think because I'd been reading about the scramble for Africa, and just generally missing working out in Kenya I wanted to see indigenous African groups do well in the LP. It always seems like eu LP mods get loads of cool ideas for china and India and America, but Africa gets 'Europeans/whoever is actually running thangs'. As my experience with EU4 is about four hours of gameplay, I don't have ideas myself, so tbh I shouldn't be ragging on yours, sorry! I guess the counterpoint to this is grey's LP anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
Edit: quote =/= edit
lenoon fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
The Fula Hegemony Around the middle of the 15th century few contemporaries cared what was going on in Western Africa, as seemingly nothing had changed over there since the conversion of Ghana to Islam. Those that do cared wondered why nothing had changed, seeing as Ghana was spectacularly wealthy, with control over some of the largest gold mines in the known world and the extremely lucrative salt trade. Ghana's rulers had seemed content to just sit on their wealth and do nothing. Unknown to nearly everybody north of the Sahel, instead of prospering in an era of stability and wealth, Ghana was slowly dying. The end of the 14th century had seen a dramatic shift in the power balance in Western Africa, as the disparate tribes of the Fula people had been unified by a charismatic warlord and military genius to form what would later be called the Fula Hegemony. Coming to power in his home clan through a bloodless coup, Hume Sefuwa quickly began subjugating neighbouring cities and tribes, establishing a military dictatorship and dominating the Niger and its tributaries. From this position the Hegemony has been constantly growing, and has been receiving support from the local Fula communities in its expansion. Obviously this expansion brought the Fula into conflict with Ghana, who they have been raiding and warring against for the last twenty years. Since the Fula military relies mostly on fast hit-and-run tactics, an influence from its large nomadic population, the Ghanans have been unable to force a decisive confrontation and are now dying a death of a thousand cuts, as trade is collapsing, the production of the gold and salt mines can no longer be safely moved, and the Ghanan army is close to breaking apart. According to Hume, he received a vision that it was his destiny to end the Muslim domination of Western Africa and bring about a revival of the traditional African faiths. While this task may not have been finished in his own lifetime, the Hegemony continues in his footsteps, slowly grinding apart the Ghanans and removing Muslim influence in the land it conquers. in-game effects Ghana should be severely weakened, with control over only one or two of the gold mines it traditionally starts out with Southeast of Ghana, most of Western Africa is either outright owned by the Fula Hegemony (remove most of the uncolonised provinces) or its client states, all of which are pagan countries (maybe relocalise the reformed Sahelian faith). The Fula Hegemony should start out as a military dictatorship (functionally similar to the theocratic governments, with rulers reigning until death, but without elections) Techgroup for the West Africans should be Ottomans, with 125% speed and a tech level ahead of the Muslims, so that the AI has a high chance to finish of Ghana. Ideas should be directed towards Expansion, Religion, Offensive and Quality to hopefully result in a strong land-based state that dominates Western Africa. Maybe they could be given a +CoreCreationCost National idea, to dissuade European encroachment on them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
sniper4625 posted:As Executive Vice President of the Unitas Party, I must strongly condemn your attack on our forward thinking precepts.  How bold! How commendable! You are exactly the kind of person Unitas needs: a proud patriot and assimilationist, but one perfectly willing to express his own opinion. You are no sheep, not like the members of other parties. Unitas attracts talent! As such, our party's expansion is inevitable, so, we need to lay down our bylaws. 1. Unitas will have one leader, the Proedros, who will determine party policy regarding coalitions. 2. Laws put forward by Unitas must be presented to the Senate by the Proedros. Members of Unitas must present their potential laws to the Proedros, who can in turn present his potential laws to them. The members of Unitas, including the Proedros, must then approve or disapprove of potential laws by majority vote. 3. The Proedros will be elected by the members of Unitas at the beginning of every Senate session. Having a leader from the same dynasty is allowed, but discouraged, given our circumstances. Note that this is subject to change. Sniper, any comments?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:
Hey, don't go counting me out just because I lost my little flag thingy at last week's kegger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 16:32
|
|
GoatLord posted:Hey, don't go counting me out just because I lost my little flag thingy at last week's kegger. Sorry! It's hard to keep track of this stuff on this crowded Senate floor.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:Sorry! It's hard to keep track of this stuff on this crowded Senate floor. Maybe we should try to get an expansion for the floor? I'm sure people will be glad to donate money so that we can argue without yelling directly into three people's ears.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Lord Cyrahzax posted:
No objections. Internal debate, external unity. Seems good to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:
 Well, if you'll take us as a sub party, the Guiding Light is happy to join the Inclusionists. The Guiding light ##Leaves the Discoridans and ##Joins the Incluionists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
WeaponGradeSadness posted:I know we're talking about Africa now, but maybe we could use your idea for one of the breakaway nations that used to be part of Rome before being lost during Branas's regime? Say, from a fluff perspective, that once all these different republics and douxes formed their independence league and it became obvious that Branas was going to cave, various senators, military officers, and other politicians that found themselves on the wrong end of Roman politics but didn't hold land of their own relocated to one of the secessionist nations and installed themselves as the rulers there. I think the ideal candidate for a nation like this would be the independent, Hellenized Venice. It was pretty much the only the territory that got Unitas'd, and with its resources, it would also be a great place for members of the Branas regime to hide out and rebuild.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 02:27
|
|
v
|
Mod progress report: both the things 1.6 broke and the random crashes I was getting have been fixed, so I can start building Cyborg Asia. The mod was even playable! Flagchat: There are a bunch of Hui minors (the revolters- the proper Ming successors all have flags) that need flags. A few of them are Sinai, Sanaa, Valencia, Wurttemberg, Trevisio, a bunch of steppe places with names I can't remember, and Iraq (also useful-- better names for these states), but really just having some general Hui/China/etc. flags on hand would also be useful, so don't feel limited to those places in particular-- I just need to set them apart from their neighbors a bit, so they stand out from the general mess of German/Andalusian/Turkish/Arab/Mongol states the collapse of the frontier and the victory of the League left behind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
 Oh poo poo Flagchat status is still greenOkay, so. Some kinda simple ones, but hopefully appropriate enough.  Hui Sinai. Chinese characters should mean "Prosperity."  Hui Trevisio, or possibly any other Hui European state, except for...  Hui Valencia. A bit of a story behind this: Valencia's coat of arms has, historically, a bat on the top of it. To quote Wikipedia on its origin: "There are several possible explanations for the bat; one is that bats are simply quite common in the area. The second theory is that on 9 October 1238, when James I was about to enter the city, re-conquering it from the Moors, one bat landed on the top of his flag, and he interpreted it as a good sign. As he conquered the city, the bat was added to the arms." Bats are a positive symbol in Chinese art, with the five-bat symbol here representing (if my research was right on this) health, wealth, happiness, long life and virtue. These two things together just seemed like too fun an opportunity to pass up. Colors might need some work, though... And lastly...  An extra flag for Da Qin. Since everyone wants to be a Rome, don't they? Let's just hope there are less "Romes" here than the Serbia one had... I would have liked to make a special flag for Hui Sana'a but I kept getting stuck on trying to find a Chinese dragon or phoenix symbol made using Arabic Calligraphy, and that's something easier said than done. Just some ideas to help this along.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
StrifeHira posted:
It's every ridiculous empire-wank I've ever dreamed of 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
StrifeHira posted:
Nice flags! Just an idea, if you can put the "seņera" or "senyera" as its background I think you're golden. As a reference, it is the flag that Jaime I gave to Valencia when he conquered its land. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
HiHo ChiRho and Unwise Cashew, do you use skype? We are thinking a skype group for the party would be useful to sort out any internal New Milvian matters (such as party bureaucracy etc) and to facilitate inner-party dialogue. My skype is yfxxiii.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
Sparq posted:Nice flags! Just an idea, if you can put the "seņera" or "senyera" as its background I think you're golden. As a reference, it is the flag that Jaime I gave to Valencia when he conquered its land. Something more like this, then?  Also made the bats stand out more. Set of more flags as well:  Hui Wurttemberg.    Three Hui flags for general use. Top character should mean "truth," middle should translate to "ever-victorious" and bottom should translate to "honor/glory."
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Those all look terrific! The generic ones are all great and will really help out with the plague of generic CK2 CoA flags the former Frontier is suffering from. I'll have to pick out Hui minors likely to actually last for a while to give 'em to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
StrifeHira posted:Something more like this, then? Perfect. It remains Hui-like, but can be related to Valencia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
So, we are to speak of flags, eh? How can we, when ours is so hideous, not only aesthetically, but in meaning? I appeal directly to Prince Hugh: change our flag. The current one is a monument to feudalism, civil war, and above all, disunity. We must transcend that. We must show the world that we are one Rome, ready to take on any challenge, no matter how much we might disagree. We must show that we are ready to and actively trying to leave the shackles of feudalism behind. Above all, we must show that we have a bit of fashion sense! What flags show Roman unity? The Komnenos Chi Rho is an option, though I know many cowards in this Senate probably see it as a sign of religious tyranny. The Branas flag was lovely, but we can't use that. Here are a few other options:  This is an image I particularly like. The fasces is an excellent and ancient symbol of Roman unity, one I'm sure even the Inclusionists could appreciate. The eagle is ready to fly, ready for a new and greater era. You can lead us to that era, Prince Hugh!  This image may be a bit familiar to the historians among us. It was the flag of the Empire before Alexios's reforms, the Palaiologos family crest. I believe they are extinct, but the two-headed eagle has great utility as a symbol of Rome. It shows solidarity with our Orthodox brothers in the Holy Roman Empire, and with the increasingly marginalized Ecumenical Patriarchy itself. These are just examples, but we must find a new flag! I call upon the Senate! New Marians, let us find a flag that will inspire our soldiers, and terrify our enemies. Monternos, let us find a flag that shows the world we are ready to embrace this bold new era, and forget our feudal past. My brother Neo Milvians, let us find a flag that the faithful will flock to, that the heathen will convert under. Adventure Merchants, let us find a flag that will sell! Inclusionists, even you, let us find a flag that the myriad peoples of the Empire will respect and follow! Prince Hugh, here we stand, voting on the very nature of our Empire. We have decided, and our flag should show that to the world: we are remade, reformed, not the Byzantine mess, but a glorious Roman future! Lord Cyrahzax fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
StrifeHira should definitely make some new Senate faction colours if time and will allows, because holy moly are those cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
 : The arms of Tuscany are quite rightly an extremely important symbol to my family. Nonetheless, I shall permit discussion of the flag of the Roman Empire. Any final decisions, however, will be up to Price Hugh, for it is his right to determine what banners shall fly over the empire of the House de Mowbray.tl;dr: Flagchat can include the imperial flag, too, but no promises, and if you want the flag changed you'll need to convince the de Mowbrays in character.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:27
|
|