IGC New Nation Poll

[unmerged(4877)]

Cambodia. Siam (Ayuthaya) in this period was busy building their empire out of Khmer, Laos, and Malaya, before the Burmese overran them. Burma would be another good add.

 

[Savant]

I don't think democracy is the best way to do this

I'm sorry if I offended anyone's democratic sensibilities, but frankly, I think this is a mistake.

We went around on this issue months ago with Hartmann and the idea was that the IGC Signoria would consult and educate itself about the advantages of including/omitting each nation and make a decision based on the merits of the case and would post an explanation for its decision.

It was the BiB-Laurent debate on the low countries which represented, I think, one of the best historical lessons I ever received (yes, BiB has posted more than "snippets" in the past, in fact his posts were very long and thorough before he became "uber-poster moderatorgamerung").

Here is what I said:

Bib & Laurent

You are both very persuasive and informed about both historical matters and issues of gameplay and I greatly respect your input. Your posts here have educated me and I wish you would both continue participating in developing the IGC with your ideas, observations, and comments.

I hadn't given the matter nearly as much thought as you two have, but I honestly can see both points of view. They are both valid and that is why as reasonable and educated people you find yourselves at a logger-jam. I think progress on the IGC in this matter (and others) will benefit greatly from your active discourse, whether you happen to agree with each other or not.

I think one thing that would help is if we did adopt some priorities with respect to the IGC. I think Hartmann has been an essential to the progress as the leader of the group and perhaps he may wish to codify some semblance of 'rules' or priorities that we may apply consistently. I think this is Bib's concern in his last few posts - not so much whether the low countries remain Spanish or Hapsburg. I get this from his invoking the disagreement he had with Sapura. On this score he seems to desire consistency.

Now that is all very laudable as the consistent application of rules is what allows us effective administration as well as promoting a perception of justice (due process). I think this is one key we have to strive to develop and I would defer to Hartmann as to what those rules may be and what processes may govern their application or their dismissal in any given instance.

Briefly, I would say we need (to repeat a bit):

1. A set of rules or priorities if you wish that generally govern some set of decisions affecting the IGC (in whatever parameters that Hartmann, in his wisdom (Deux Maximus), would wish to have the rules apply; e.g., province allocation, tag assignments)

2. What processes govern their application would include developing a quorum of posts from key subject matter experts (SME's) like yourselves as their is a treasure of historical experts who participate here. Such a 'quorom' may mean that Hartmann gives notice that you must post a response to an issue within a certain period of time (or forever hold your peace) and may include either/both a post accumulation standard (50 posts) or a time deadline. Another alternative is to use some democratic process as Hartmann has tried with the province tags. Finally, a third alternative is to assemble a committee of experts who volunteer to debate (as you two have) and to let the debate steer the decision with Hartmann dispensing the final verdict (perhaps even subject to appeal - details would need to be worked out).

3. Exceptions to the applications of rules always occur. SO Bib may find it not wholey satisfactory to enact rules as they may sometimes be over-ridden due to outstanding circumstances peculiar to a case. Hartmann may decide for some compelling reason to suspend the rule or process in a specific instance. We ask a lot of Hartmann and we come to expect a lot bc he happens to deliver. PErhaps it may not be that following the rule is to his dislike as much as it may be difficult or trying to implement.

I do this kind of stuff for a living so excuse me if I blend work with your discussion. And I do appreciate you continuing your discussion.

 

[Savant]

Part 2

As I stated somewhere above, the rules governing the IGC can at times be conflicting. We have:

Primary Rule 1: Depict province ownership in 1492 as exactly as possible.

Primary Rule 2: Take reasonable measures to encourage 'hands off' development along the historical red line.

In some cases PR1 and PR2 can conflict, namely when following PR1 will effectively thwart historical development.

There are some 'legal' exceptions to PR1 I want to mention:

E1) If a province x in Europe was neutral in 1492 we give it - depending on circumstances - to a country, which
a) had control over the province nominally
b) had complete control over the province until shortly before 1492
c) had complete control over the province shortly after 1492

We do not implement European provinces as neutral because then they could only be taken by colonisation, which almost always would lead to absurd results in Europe. (What we would need is in fact two different forms of being neutral: neutral to be conquered and neutral to be colonised, but the engine only knows the second form.)

E2) If a rightly depicted province x is contended between countries A and B in 1492 (we - depending on circumstances - give it to one of those countries according to the same deliberations as in E1.

E3) If a province x is wrongly depicted so that part of it was owned by country A and another part by country B, we try to decide according to who had control over the more important part (main city or CoT). We also take other considerations into account, like the Swiss Cheese problem.

E4) If a province x outside of Europe was neutral in 1492, but conquered shortly thereafter by a noneuropean power A bordering it, we give x to A right away in case they have not even colonists. Then we usually downgrade those provinces to little colonies (e.g. Persia´s eastern provinces).

Now, what we normally DON´T do is taking a province x fully controlled by country A away from A and giving it to country B instead.

In this light, Bib is totally right in pointing out the inconsistency of the current Netherlandssituation in 1492. I also fully remember the inconsistency of those earlier discussions about these issues. E.g. Sapura once wrote: 'Taking provinces away from the country which controlled them leaves a bad taste in my mouth.' Yet he was among those supporting the 'Spain has all the lowlands from the start' solution.

What we have to discuss, is whether there are reasons for a very strong exception

E5) If in 1492 country A controlled province x, but due to limits of the game engine this would effectively thwart the possibility of the emergence of a historical situation which in reality had major consequences, then we can give x to country B to retain this possibility.

Please note, that I don´t judge historical events by their 'probability' here. I judge them in light of their consequences on further history. People pointed out, that e.g. the inheritance of Prussia by Brandenburg was 'highly unlikely' in 1492. This is correct. But I nevertheless would take measures to encourage this event, because the factual emergence of Prussia - however unlikely - had major consequences on later history. We all know, that in the current games there´s almost always a power vacuum in the region in the 18th century allowing Poland to stay strong when it actually was in big trouble having mighty enemies on it´s eastern AND western border.

What we have to discuss now, are two things:

1. Should we have the exception rule E5?
2. If yes to 1, would giving the Lowlands or part of it to Spain fall under E5?

With 2) we should consider the following questions:

2a) Is the presence of Spain in the lowlands a historical fact with major consequences for later historical development of the game?
2b) Given the Dutch revolt anyway, is their revolting against Spain a fact with major consequences for later historical development of the game?

I would say 'yes' to 2a) because of the consequences of the surrounding of France and the rivalry of the 'United Provinces' with the Spanish held lowlands to the South (in the very end historically leading to the emergence of Belgium). But I would say 'no' to 2b) as for the later development of the game it doesn´t matter against whom the Dutch have revolted.
That´s why I think that IF we allow E5 at all, then only 2a warrants to take provinces away from Austria, which would then have to be the Southern ones, which were still owned by Spain after the emergence of the Netherlands. 2b on the other hand doesn´t fall under E5 and so doesn´t allow for a violation of PR1, which means the United Provinces section has to stay with Austria. But this is only my opinion of course, and as I said, if we don´t reach an agreement I will leave everything as it is however it 'hurts'. (I only would maybe allow myself to include an inofficial hidden alternate scenario ).


A last point: As You see, I´m fully aware, that the 'split solution' is still not consistent with PR1, but on the other hand I simply cannot grasp, why the split solution should be a bigger no-no than the 'Spain has it all' solution. E.g. why should Franche Compte and Friesen be in 'one hand' in 1492 under every circumstances? This is beyond me.

Hartmann

I motion that we reaffirm this approach to settling issues and what nations should be represented. It is a far more orderly approach and a decision doesn't have to be permanent - there may be compelling game play issues that arise which mandate changes.

I think a democratic approach to historical reconstruction is nothing more than that. The decision should be based on forum debate and information culled by the IGC signoria.

 

[State Machine]

Nice

I wish I had wandered into the scenario forum in February instead of April. (and have never left )

 

[unmerged(4877)]

Wouldn't the "Neutral to be Conquered" concept mentioned above be a good thing to add to the wish list forum?

 

[BiB]

More tags would solve that a lot better