Eire complainment

[unmerged(51378)]

Hello. After having a look in the Eire file, I have one big complainment: Here on Interregnum, it's everyone should choose the path they want to take. However, this isn't the case with Eire - as soon as I try to get the DP sliders in decent positions, I get crap events moving them back. Why? A powerfull leader with loyalists in the army and bureacracy could force these things upon the people. Thousands of armies, move to orthodox tech group, loads of stability hit events during the first 100 years, tons of badboy points and whatnot. But I should still have the ability to create an Eire that I like.

 

[MattyG]

The introduction event should have explained this to you somewhat.

Also, check out some of the Eire threads, they have a lot of details.

The core issue is that Eire society and politics was radically different from any other in the world. The model of hierarchical authority that was largely constant across the rest of the world simply did not exist in Eire. To use some contemporary jargon, Eire was a kind of anarcho-socialist collective.

Consider the following:

1. As much as they had a king, he was elected, and could be thrown out as well.

2. The king's powers were quite limited. He could not even increase taxes in any way, for example, nor change ANY laws. He was effectively just the commander of the armies and the head of state, undertaking foreign policy. His other work was ceremonial and ensuring the maintenance of core public facilities, including roads and bridges and hospitals.

3. The same was true of regional and local authorities. There was NO hereditary nobility and the concept was entirely foreign in Eire society. Anyone who had authority in Eire (except the Church, naturally) was elected, and could be thrown out.

4. So, no feudalism, and everyone a freedman with an equal right to be elected to any office. Written down in law. Low aristocracy, low serfdom, low centralization and you with no legal authority to change any of that.


So, that means that if you want to play an Eire that works in a more generic middle ages way, then you would have to suggest a storyline wherein someone of a Napoleonic stature emerged who would have the personal Charisma and military brilliance to foreever change Eire society. The culmination of that period would be the removal of the flag gaelic_law, meaning that different events would and would not trigger for Eire.

Such a storyline and event series would created a long, long period of civil unrest, and there would need to be quite a substantial 'payment' in game terms for undertaking that path.

There are two natural periods where it might occur. One is during the 'civil war' in the early 1500s, the other would be the Gilchrist O'Neil period. There could be an action_c in one of those where this aforementioned brilliant leader takes over Eire and leads it in a new direction.

Otherwise, you need to accept that we won't create events where you can chose to have the Caliphate turn Catholic, nor an equally radical concept such as Eireann law changing at the whim of the player. And if Eire is therefore not to your taste, that's cool, play a different country.

 

[unmerged(51378)]

The introduction event should have explained this to you somewhat.

Also, check out some of the Eire threads, they have a lot of details.

The core issue is that Eire society and politics was radically different from any other in the world. The model of hierarchical authority that was largely constant across the rest of the world simply did not exist in Eire. To use some contemporary jargon, Eire was a kind of anarcho-socialist collective.

Consider the following:

1. As much as they had a king, he was elected, and could be thrown out as well.

2. The king's powers were quite limited. He could not even increase taxes in any way, for example, nor change ANY laws. He was effectively just the commander of the armies and the head of state, undertaking foreign policy. His other work was ceremonial and ensuring the maintenance of core public facilities, including roads and bridges and hospitals.

3. The same was true of regional and local authorities. There was NO hereditary nobility and the concept was entirely foreign in Eire society. Anyone who had authority in Eire (except the Church, naturally) was elected, and could be thrown out.

4. So, no feudalism, and everyone a freedman with an equal right to be elected to any office. Written down in law. Low aristocracy, low serfdom, low centralization and you with no legal authority to change any of that.


So, that means that if you want to play an Eire that works in a more generic middle ages way, then you would have to suggest a storyline wherein someone of a Napoleonic stature emerged who would have the personal Charisma and military brilliance to foreever change Eire society. The culmination of that period would be the removal of the flag gaelic_law, meaning that different events would and would not trigger for Eire.

Such a storyline and event series would created a long, long period of civil unrest, and there would need to be quite a substantial 'payment' in game terms for undertaking that path.

There are two natural periods where it might occur. One is during the 'civil war' in the early 1500s, the other would be the Gilchrist O'Neil period. There could be an action_c in one of those where this aforementioned brilliant leader takes over Eire and leads it in a new direction.

Otherwise, you need to accept that we won't create events where you can chose to have the Caliphate turn Catholic, nor an equally radical concept such as Eireann law changing at the whim of the player. And if Eire is therefore not to your taste, that's cool, play a different country.

The problem isn't really me playing - I can remove the events, which I have, easily - but rather how Interregnum should be. And I have nothing against a catholic Kaliphate (could it still be a kaliphate anyway? :wacko: ) though I disagree: Someone forcing power in Eire in one way or another is a lot more likely than the khalif turning catholic.

 

[MattyG]

What I meant was that a player being allowed to alter Eire society without a Napoleon type figure is equal to the Caliphate going Catholic at the player's whim.

Please explain how the current Eire is un-Interregnum? I don't get it.

Interregnum aims to be a plausible alternative history. In the Real World Eire and its Gaelic Law were crushed by the Normans and successive English invasions and repression. Instead, we have postulated what would have occured if the Normans, although successful in southern/central England, had not done so well against Scotland and chosen to not invade Eire. Ergo, the longstanding Eire traditions and law have continued.

 

[unmerged(51378)]

I don't get it either. If with Eire, why not the opposite with some hyper-aristocratic country without tons of RR and stability drops as opposed to just a touch on the sliders?

 

[MattyG]

Law.

Thats the difference.

In every single other country in the game, the king/caliph/republic etc has the authority to enact structural and legal change in the country, and this is represented through the DP Sliders.

In Eire, the king does not. The law is in the hands of the judges, who are elected from among the people, based on their education and public standing. And in Eire's long history, the laws changed rarely.

This presents the game and its players with a unique situation. With the premise that you are the Grey Power behind the throne, manipulating the monarch as much as possible (and other elements of society, sure) with Eire there are greater limits on your ability to change the society.

I think it is vital that Interregnum reflect the cultural realities of the world, be it the traditional sunni faith of Cordoba, the human sacrifice of the Maya, or the Gaelic Law of Eire. These things are real and have effects. And if you want to radically change those societies then it needs to be part of a very very dramatic storyline with severe consequences, as in the rise of Mutazelism in Cordoba, the ending of human sacrifice in Maya or the abandonment of Gaelic Law in Eire. It should not be something a player does casually by clicking on a DP slider very ten years.

 

[unmerged(51378)]

Law.

Thats the difference.

In every single other country in the game, the king/caliph/republic etc has the authority to enact structural and legal change in the country, and this is represented through the DP Sliders.

In Eire, the king does not. The law is in the hands of the judges, who are elected from among the people, based on their education and public standing. And in Eire's long history, the laws changed rarely.

This presents the game and its players with a unique situation. With the premise that you are the Grey Power behind the throne, manipulating the monarch as much as possible (and other elements of society, sure) with Eire there are greater limits on your ability to change the society.

I think it is vital that Interregnum reflect the cultural realities of the world, be it the traditional sunni faith of Cordoba, the human sacrifice of the Maya, or the Gaelic Law of Eire. These things are real and have effects. And if you want to radically change those societies then it needs to be part of a very very dramatic storyline with severe consequences, as in the rise of Mutazelism in Cordoba, the ending of human sacrifice in Maya or the abandonment of Gaelic Law in Eire. It should not be something a player does casually by clicking on a DP slider very ten years.

This I agree with. But what I think is wrong is submitting it without a way out. Ah, I'll just carve out some event then.

 

[MattyG]

This I agree with. But what I think is wrong is submitting it without a way out. Ah, I'll just carve out some event then.

But I have already said I personally support the idea of a storyline where an appropriately dynamic and charismatic figure might bring about dramatic change to Eire. The concept is plausible, it would just have to be design well. This would give a player (and ocassionally the ai) the chance to move Eire in a different direction.

 

[loki1232]

But I have already said I personally support the idea of a storyline where an appropriately dynamic and charismatic figure might bring about dramatic change to Eire. The concept is plausible, it would just have to be design well. This would give a player (and ocassionally the ai) the chance to move Eire in a different direction.

You know there's the possibility that such a figure would be inclined to focus more on Europe, and create a pan gaelic nation (appealls to nationalism would be one of the reasons he is so successful at creating a new Eire).
Maybe at first get cores on all of the traditional gaelic/celtic provinces, culminating in a war with Scotland. If successful I was thinking that they could annex scotland and have a series of events choosing how to manage the norwegian population in scotland, and how much to promote the gaelic heritage of scotland.
Basically, the pan gaelic/celtic nation led by Napolean gets many more cores and opportunities to expand in Europe, instead of being limited to colonization.

Now that I think about it, if the Irish Napolean is successful in his ambitions, then there is the possibility it could trigger the advent of nationalism in other places as well (historically this sort of happened). Such as English Nationalism if any of those English Minors still existed then they would gain cores and demand territories from other non-english countries, occasionally causing wars.
Or once Scotland is defeated then their nearby neighbors of Iceland may decide they want freedom from overseas oppresssors.

On a different note, is there a sequence where the new Catholic kingdom of Spain can choose to mistreat the gaelic people in Galicia, and thus trigger the events where Eire tries to take those provinces?

Loki

 

[MattyG]

You know there's the possibility that such a figure would be inclined to focus more on Europe, and create a pan gaelic nation (appealls to nationalism would be one of the reasons he is so successful at creating a new Eire).
Maybe at first get cores on all of the traditional gaelic/celtic provinces, culminating in a war with Scotland. If successful I was thinking that they could annex scotland and have a series of events choosing how to manage the norwegian population in scotland, and how much to promote the gaelic heritage of scotland.
Basically, the pan gaelic/celtic nation led by Napolean gets many more cores and opportunities to expand in Europe, instead of being limited to colonization.

Bullseye, loki.

Thank you for dropping by and adding this idea, because it is the perfect fit.

Ranika and Incompetent were individually supposed to be working on how Alba might be formed, which is the pan-Gaelic northern state of Scotland and Eire, but nothing got done. This will fill that gap nicely.

Now that I think about it, if the Irish Napolean is successful in his ambitions, then there is the possibility it could trigger the advent of nationalism in other places as well (historically this sort of happened). Such as English Nationalism if any of those English Minors still existed then they would gain cores and demand territories from other non-english countries, occasionally causing wars.

Possibly, although it could also be said that the world was ready for Nationalism at that point and Napolean was a catalyst only. I doubt Napolean could have forced that level of consciousness change in, say 1500. But it is an intriguing thought, certainly. And I like the idea that it could trigger an Anglo-Saxon cultural renaissance, assuming neither York nor Wessex has managed to conquer the island.
Or once Scotland is defeated then their nearby neighbors of Iceland may decide they want freedom from overseas oppresssors.

On a different note, is there a sequence where the new Catholic kingdom of Spain can choose to mistreat the gaelic people in Galicia, and thus trigger the events where Eire tries to take those provinces?

Loki

Sort of. Eire can get a core on Galicia and convert it to Gaelic culture. But the Catholic Kingdom of Spain does not have a lot of depth to it yet. If the Irish Napoleon were doing well, I think that his ambitions would need to include a core on Galicia, one which would be lost if Eire did not own it upon his passing.

 

[MattyG]

Ahmed writes:

"I strongly oppose that reason for that would be nationalism-kind...
Nationalism is product of 19C when christianity was disgraced in war
between science and church, and started process of dechristianity of Europe.
This was time, when many left christianity and turned interest to
pre-christianity pagan times. So its Vagner time - about their sacred
ancestors (who were pagans), about myth, pagan gods. Paganism promote
nationalism, becouse those people see them as center of world, and
family-relitece-tribe-nation is connected with very special sacred
blood and mythical ancesters.

This process was suported by industrial revolution cos it supported
closed ecenomical system - (national) state with its protected market.

While not excactly as Islam, christianity too talks that more important
is relations with God than language wich they speak...

So nationalism ir product of 18th, - its time of dechritianity, industrial
revolution, darvinism-racism, Vagner operas - paganism, sacred blood,
sacred ancestors, mythical preancestors, imperialistic-national state
interactions etc.

It should not be excactly nationalism for Eire. Rulers at that time
mostly didnt care much about their serfs language, if they did not use it as reason to revolt. They cared about clases and richness.

But there could be some other reason to get those teritories. "

 

[loki1232]

I'm glad you like my idea Matty.

 

[MattyG]

I'm glad you like my idea Matty.

Another thing I was thinking: reformation in Eire. It seems like Eire is a prime place for Reformation due to its culture and unity. After all, wouldn't it make more sense for the Irish bishop to be "unelectable" by the people, instead of the pope?

You risk the wrath of Archduke.

Not to mention Ranika.

Ranika is the resident Eire expert. Basically, the only people more Catholic than the Irish was the Pope himself. Italy would have gone reformed before Eire did.

 

[loki1232]

Sorry guys.
*goes and deletes post*

 

[orimazd]

I suggest having the Irish Napoleon be of non-Irish descent, much like Napoleon wasn't actually French (rule 3 in french warfare, that france could only win wars if led by a non-Frenchman :rofl: no offense, if any frenchfolk read this). lol, Niaphollionn

 

[unmerged(16159)]

Whoa.

Interregnum revises history with what-ifs. What if a Council had decided X instead of Y? What if The Battle of Z was won by A instead of B.

But I didn't think we were in the business of creating great individuals. Was there actually a great, charismatic Irish/Gaelic leader who would have done the things being proposed, in the same era as you propose?

Please correct me if I am wrong on this issue.

 

[orimazd]

That's why there's a choice for such a thing to happen. Otherwise Niaphollionn or whatever we want to call him could just be a good general or a powerful individual in the civil war.

 

[MattyG]

Whoa.

Interregnum revises history with what-ifs. What if a Council had decided X instead of Y? What if The Battle of Z was won by A instead of B.

But I didn't think we were in the business of creating great individuals. Was there actually a great, charismatic Irish/Gaelic leader who would have done the things being proposed, in the same era as you propose?

Please correct me if I am wrong on this issue.

Nope. Well, the individual doesn't have to be of the same stature as the once-in-a-century Napoleon (or Salah al-Din, or Alexander, or Timur etc etc), just someone with enough charisma, arrogance and determination to change Eire when the chance comes along (civil war).

And there are lots of great individuals we have created for Interregnum. Some of them are in the Hansa file ...

 

[unmerged(16159)]

Nope. Well, the individual doesn't have to be of the same stature as the once-in-a-century Napoleon (or Salah al-Din, or Alexander, or Timur etc etc), just someone with enough charisma, arrogance and determination to change Eire when the chance comes along (civil war).

Sure. I can see that. Napoloen was a dude, but would he have had as much impact if he was born in Cork or Bergen? So there will be a great historical Irish/Portugese leader, who could do great things with Interregnum Eire that he could never do with IRL Eire.

And there are lots of great individuals we have created for Interregnum. Some of them are in the Hansa file ...

Great, yes. But not epoch-definingly great. And none of them with Napoleon or Johann's stats.




PS Unto our sister's family, a son is born. Cooper Webb, born 11.08.06, MattyG's new nephew.

 

[Dairpo]

In response to Ahmed's concerns I'd like to point out that nationalism did exist prior to 19th Century Europe. The names and forms that we associate with "nationalism" date from that time but ideas of cultural unity can be found in places such as the English and French colonies in North America in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Les canadiennes had national stirrings prior to the conquest. Power struggles between local elites and European Frenchmen sent over by the king were constant from the mid17th Century onwards. These conflicts became so bad that by the time the British invaded during the 7-Years War the French and Canadienne leadership couldn't organize for war, albiet they had a few early victories. Simply while the French claimed dominion and control over their Canadian colony the Canadienne likewise struggled, in a rather orderly fashion, for their relative autonomy (which they got, in a fashion, under British rule).

Basically if we take an isolated community that has developed certain unique characteristics that makes it fundamentally different than its neighbours, overlords, or some form of invader they become incredably self-aware fast. The nationalist leader would not come from no-where, it would involve some kind of society-crashing crisis, or a sudden realization of difference, that would shake up society in such a way that it recreates itself as something completely different than the other. ...

So.. maybe an Irish civil war and a Scottish invasion (or Breton, or whatever). The first will weaken the Irish state to the point that the invaders discover a claim on the Island and decide to take while the getting's good only to face a quick victor that manages to reunite the State behind his (or her) charismatic leadership as they realize their common uniqueness (not even consiously) in time to repulse the invaders...

Or something like that