Post-Apocalyptic Mod

[unmerged(91168)]

Orinsul

If you unify them by conquering them thats still divided, as its not one united 'religion' with many independent states as is America and Christendom, but entirely independent states with no international authority over them, i.e. No Pope.

...Except they all share the same religion (well, Quebec's a bunch of heretics, but they're still all Canadian).

Does the canadian 'religion' group have any correlation to its previous government?

I think it's a rather obvious choice.

If its built along the same lines as the american, from similiar foundations and in the same direction, than how come its immerse amount of contact hasn't brought the two together?

How come the immense amount of contact didn't bring the Byzantines and Catholics together? Because they didn't want to, because the differences were larger than they might first seem, and because the contact wasn't that immense (and, additionally, the contact in this case consists of fighting each other).

In this case, the two religions would appear in different locations, based on different systems, with different views of what power a supreme leader should have, and in different 'climates'. The fact that they would then be different while still having similarities in their expression is hardly inconceivable.

Leaving that aside: the foundations are similar, but different.

For one thing, Presidents and Governors-General derive their powers from different places. American Presidents hold power in their own right. Governors-General derive it from elsewhere (as do Prime Ministers). So a Canadian emperor would be claiming to be the rightful designate of the Queen (and possibly also the people of Canada - especially if he's a heretic from Quebec), while an American President is claiming to be the rightful designate of the people (or the law).

Basically, when there's no Canadian emperor, the Chief Justice (or whoever) is supreme religious authority. If an Emperor appears, then he becomes a subordinate to that Emperor.

For another, depending on the source of the religion, the role of the head of the religion is very different. If it's judicial, the head of the Supreme Court is the ruler of the country if there is no Governor-General. If it's legislative, then the Prime Minister tells the Governor-General what to do. In either case, this is a very different relationship than in the American system.

For a third, the Canadian and American view of rights are very different. For one thing, Canadians are a lot more willing to compromise on rights for other purposes. Our rights aren't absolute in the sense the Americans often interpret theirs to be. This would actually seem more likely to encourage the formation of an Empire - Canadians should see the parts as prepared to sacrifice for the whole (to some extent).

Why should it? Shouldnt its identity be more built on its more recent glories as the harrier of the continent than long shadows from before the fall?
...
If there is a Canadian one, then if its not in play at the start and wasnt recently in the backstory then its theres as a reflection of the American one.

This exact same argument would justify the Americans not having an empire, too.

For one thing, the two are not mutually exclusive. For another, perhaps what lead to their collapse as raiders was too much warring amongst themselves trying to reform the empire (between Quebec and Ontario would be the obvious possibility). They got distracted by that for too long, and now the Americans are too strong to push around. They can unify, ally, sell out, or try and beat up non-imperial parts of America before the empire gets too powerful.

And the Texan one isnt on the basis of Texas as an Empire, but as seeing itself as the legitimate continuation of the United States, a division and schism within the one not a second unrelated. With Congress having appointed a new President following some major breach or controversy, the former refusing to stand down and half supporting one and half the other. Or President appointing a new congress and etc the same but worded different. that idea anyway. Its there to fulfill the role of the Byzantines.

Why would Congress go appoint a President on the other side of the continent? And why would the President tolerate someone who also claimed to be President? There was a precedent for two emperors in Europe. There isn't a precedent for two Presidents. Well, not without massive warfare between them.

What I might be able to see is the Texans being Americans who thought states rights were more important (which seems appropriately Texan), and so the Texan leader is actually the Supreme Governor rather than the President.

Reforms in modern states come from parliaments not courthouses, courthouses enforce the decisions of the government they do not make them,

To dig out some Canadian examples:
The Patriation Reference
Quebec v Blaikie
R v Sparrow
Re BC Motor Vehicle Act
R v Morgantaler
Gosselin v Quebec
Egan v Canada
Re Quebec Secession


For some American ones:
Roe v Wade
Brown v Board of Education
Loving v Virginia
Griswold v Connecticut
O'Connor v Donaldson

The very principle of universal rights is that the court overturns the government (including the legislature) when the government tries to step on your rights. The court is who protect your rights, who interprets the documents that set out your rights, and who decides what infringements of your rights are appropriate. If you want a 'religion' based around the idea of universal rights, then the obvious people to be the priests of that religion are judges, not legislators.

Rights are not laws. They are rights. There is a massive difference.

So the question remains, whats between a governor and a mayor/commissioner/sheriff? What equates roughly to a duchy in land size or to a duke in terms of military terminology, commander? or colonel? The American hierarchy of local government seems to jump straight from the very local, town or county at the biggest to statewide with nothing in-between and wikipedia is being very unhelpful.

That's because that's what American government does (if you look at modern UK government, actually, I believe it also goes straight from counties to Parliament, and Canada basically goes straight from counties to the province).

So, basically, there actually isn't anything there. Titles would have to be created. Obvious ones would be "lower title + denotation of superiority" or "higher title + denotation of inferiority". Or we could look at who the various seconds and deputies of governors et al are right now, and assume they would be given responsibility for regions.

 

[Orinsul]

so your canada also uses the catholic/orthodox mechanics? instead of being different to play by using the pagan mechanics? Is another a united civilisation with a religious leader, rather than having a different feel and style of play by having no religious leader and having ultimate authority vested in local rulers until such a time as one of them gets big enough to proclaim himself an emperor and then is really just a Big King and has no international authority outside of his direct realm?
As really whats the problem with that? Why have Canada be the same mechanics as America just in a different place, when it would be more fun to have them use different mechanics and so offer a different type of game.

Its more interesting if it is different, not just two different versions of the same idea, separate but more or less identical, using the same mechanics and ideas. If Canada has the pagan mechanics, than thats a completely different society, so completely different types of events and mechanics and type of play. i.e. more reason to play them as they play differently.
That the American civilisation is United as Christendom was united, so a canadian of the american religion group has more or the same ideas, concepts, rituals and understandings, foundations and society as a mississipian or a georgian. But a canadian of the Canadian religion group has no common international religious unity or leadership, so he has more in common with people of his culture, he has more in common with other people from his country than he does with quebecians who are of the same religion group, but have a different language, society, etc. Are not Heretics because there is no Universal Truth for them to be diminishing, they are different because they are foreign or speak another language.
The Americans being many cultures united under the commonality of the American civilisation and congressional leadership, and so the division is between them and people of other civilisations, while the canadians have no common moral authority, no common ritual or equivalent to the sacred Mass, so are divided among themselves by culture and by province.
The Canadians should use the Pagan mechanics, not the christian mechanics as everyone else is using those and it would be more fun and interesting to have them using different mechanics and having a different kind of society. National not International, divided not united and decentralised.

And the American/Texas split arent apart, they are within the same united civilisation, just following different leadership but the same corporate, there is a cleavage between them but they are of the same civilisation.

Courts are everywhere, courts are natural leaders, if courts are the church then what are the courts going to be called? Congress is in one place, it current represent the whole nation and is the government of the nation. The nation falls the government carries on, the government in congress, with the parliamentary process continues, democracy continues in spirit and soul. That government has authority not over one province but the whole of america. America is civilisation. Congress reaches out to the tribes and nations around the D.C. valley and begins to restore its authority. From there it spreads civilisation throughout america. As the Federal Government a term meaning more or less the same as Church, Universal Authority and Leadership, spreads democracy and government as it goes by bringing more and more of the continent under its authority. As Moral Leader of the united American Civilisation. Its re-establishes democracy by having representives from Congress in all secular countries it brings into its civilisation [delegates [lords spiritual] and by establishing represents from that state within Congress [Senators and Representives [Archbishops and Bishops]]. Thats the basic backstory for the not-the-church-Church and the shape and naming of it.
More or Less based entirely on how the Church rebuilt civilisation in the dark ages, as that creates the same conditions of the united civilisation and religious leadership as needed by the mechanics.
The idea of the president being revivied by a powerful secular ruler to serve his own purpose, as Charlemagne did, and then later divided over the issue of the independence of Congress from the President [as the east/west split, allowing use of orthodox mechanics] leading to the old, excommunicated president continuing in texas and the new congress backed president in ohio or somewhere [HRE getting aknowledged as the empire over BYZA by the Church] etc.

Canada not having the issue of a universal sovereign or universal moral authority not having any of these problems. Just kings and their laws, not Kings and their laws, under the Church and her Laws. Its not a bad thing for canada to be different, but a good a fun thing.

And yes i was almost 100% sure that america didnt have anything inbetween i was just hoping i was wrong. Would Commander Work? Director? Director would work for England and its a nice word, starts with a D like duke does and is a good leadership word. But it looks forced. Directors Direct things, very generic so it works, someone who directs a region, a director. Someone who commands, a Commander. Someone who is commissioned to rule a region of land on behalf of the governor, a Commissioner. all work really.
But i mean it doesnt HAVE to be a currently in common use term, its for something that doesnt currently exist so it might well be a word that isnt currently used. Director is nice, Comissioner is like the highest ranking policeman in a city or district, so it might be good for counts or barons if baron or mayor would be better for barons.

 

[unmerged(91168)]

As really whats the problem with that? Why have Canada be the same mechanics as America just in a different place, when it would be more fun to have them use different mechanics and so offer a different type of game.

Except my way offers all the possibilities yours does, and then offers another one on top of that.

Canadians as a separate religious group from Americans who have the potential to create an empire would be a unique and interesting option to add on to the four existing empires and the pagan Caribbeans. It'd also make the American game in the north a little more interesting by providing greater potential for a strong, united northern enemy (that the President can't just vassalize). It adds something and costs nothing.

the canadians have no common moral authority, no common ritual or equivalent to the sacred Mass, so are divided among themselves by culture and by province.

As I have said a hundred times before, the Canadians have just as much reason to end up with a national religion as the Americans do. Restating your idea does not invalidate this.

The other pagans in the game would be the Caribbean. Compare the Canadians to them. Canada is a united nation that's geographically continuous and has a long history of strong national government. The Caribbean isn't - it's a collection of small, very disparate, geographically divided nations with shorter histories of weaker national government. The Canadians are much more comparable to the Americans, and so it makes sense for their religion to be similar (if perhaps part of a different religion group).

It makes sense for the Canadians to have a national religion. It makes sense for it to be distinct from the American one. It makes sense for that national religion to have an empire, both for logical reasons and because of the in-game possibilities. It's that simple.

And the American/Texas split arent apart, they are within the same united civilisation, just following different leadership but the same corporate, there is a cleavage between them but they are of the same civilisation.
...
The idea of the president being revivied by a powerful secular ruler to serve his own purpose, as Charlemagne did, and then later divided over the issue of the independence of Congress from the President [as the east/west split, allowing use of orthodox mechanics] leading to the old, excommunicated president continuing in texas and the new congress backed president in ohio or somewhere [HRE getting aknowledged as the empire over BYZA by the Church] etc.

They're very split geographically, which makes the idea of their schism as you present it seem a bit strange. Especially if they both claim to be the rightful President of America. As I said, there's no precedent for there being two of those, and so it would seem strange if either tolerated the existence of the other.

Your proposal isn't how the split worked in the real world - the Byzantine Emperor existed long before the split in the church. The religious schism between East and West co-opted existing empires, at least to some extent. In this case, you seem to want the empires to grow out of the schism, but then be willing to help each other later (as opposed to trying to kill each other). I don't think you can get that from two Presidencies.

The most logical thing, IMO, is something like this: Texans think that the states are more important than the presidency. The Supreme Governor is just a "first among equals", and is basically there to coordinate members against the American President trying to assert excessive authority. The President is still willing to help them with Crusades because he still sees them as subordinates (just slightly delusional ones). They take the help because otherwise he might catch on that they don't really follow him.

Courts are everywhere, courts are natural leaders, if courts are the church then what are the courts going to be called?

State courts.

The 'holy' ones are called national courts or federal courts.

More or Less based entirely on how the Church rebuilt civilisation in the dark ages, as that creates the same conditions of the united civilisation and religious leadership as needed by the mechanics.

Except, again, the judiciary makes more sense in that comparison, because they're already distributed through the nation. Congress isn't. The judiciary are also involved in daily life in a way sort-of similar to the church. Congress isn't. The judiciary must work with what came before. Congress doesn't have to. Perhaps most importantly, the judiciary can't be vetoed by the President. Congress can be.

Plus, as others have pointed out, if Congress survives in anything resembling an intact condition, they'd have enough knowledge to basically rebuild society. Judges, however, are fairly focused on the law.

Canada not having the issue of a universal sovereign or universal moral authority not having any of these problems. Just kings and their laws, not Kings and their laws, under the Church and her Laws. Its not a bad thing for canada to be different, but a good a fun thing.

But it makes no sense. Further to that, the 'fun' it offers mostly seems to be 'you can't do this', as opposed to 'you do this differently'.

But i mean it doesnt HAVE to be a currently in common use term, its for something that doesnt currently exist so it might well be a word that isnt currently used. Director is nice, Comissioner is like the highest ranking policeman in a city or district, so it might be good for counts or barons if baron or mayor would be better for barons.

I think it really will depend on the hierarchy that's chosen. In a military based one, the solution is obvious. In a law enforcement one, I'd say Commissioner or High Commissioner'd probably be best. Others will depend.

 

[Orinsul]

It gets distributed as it goes, it doesnt matter what is distributed now because now gets blown up. Canada has as much chance as america as developing into a united civilisation, which is none. Just as Rome had none until it did then every one turned around and said, look it did so it must of.
it doesnt stay everywhere it is now the whole way, as then it wouldn't be a united it would either be one massive country or lots of little entirely independent with no unity [i.e. pagan mechanics]. For the politically Independent but still part of the corporate civilisation, it needs a initially weak authority that reclaims places for civilisation and brings them into it but is unable to dominate them politically. i.e not an empire conquering but the Church converting.
it starts in one place and spreads outward. So distribution now doesnt matter. The judicary might well have survived and evolved into a governing body and then slowly spread out, but so could a super market, anything could have, that doesnt make it the best option to say did as thats in our hands. it might have been the Courts, but it shouldnt as their too narrow and small a thing to start with, one purpose, one function, one symbol, law and justice. Not a Nation, not a Civilisation, not a Society, but the law and justice of a nation.
What does it represent, what is its function? Does it govern? or is it part of the legal system? Is it something that could claim itself the whole of the government and the embodiment of the nations? or as something that works for the government?
Congress is a House of Representatives, it isnt just an arm of the nation, it IS the nation, the thing and the whole of the thing atleast in concept and symbolism.
Congress carries more ideas with it, you do not send representives to the national court, each state has its own courts who in turn answer to higher courts who in turn answer to national courts. You send representatives to Congress, It is an institution that is in one place but represents the whole nation and makes decisions effecting the whole nation. And it has alot better language around it. Congressional, Senator, Representive, Speaker, Government, etc not just, Judicial, justice, Grand Justice, High Justice, Cheif Justice, pretty damn repetitive.
is there any actual problem with it being congress and congressional? That is the government continuing in the body that Governs, the leadership coming from the leaders. The local government being used for local government, the National Federal Government being made into the international universal government. The government as the Church, the thing and the whole of the thing.
Who is the government? is it the courts? or parliament? Who represents the nation as a whole better? the institution built of representatives of the nation, or the court system which rather than claiming everything is the highest step in a long ladder of authority, the last court of appeal which can overturn laws but not draft them, which follows laws and re-defines them not invents them.
The Church = Government, an authority over all states = authority over all nations. It is the government who represents, is the government who is the nation. Congress is the nation, made up of representatives from the nation to pass bills and act on behalf of the nation.
Then everything gets blown up, that idea of Government survives, maybe even a few people of it. The Nation is re-established, the foundation of it is the idea of a Federal Government, democratic, made of representatives to represent, to make laws and decisions not just for one state, for one case but over all states. To pass Federal Laws and amend the constitution [the idea of an immortal truth, a law which is always true]. Whether any documents survive that idea does. Of a government over all people in the nation, that spreads out, across the continent and becomes the international united community.

If it was Courts would it be the Church or would it be an Imperial Title using moslem mechanics? If it was courts it wouldnt be representation of and for, it wouldnt be the government over all places it would be justice and law. Tyrants with a strict code, not a great and flourishing civilisation.

Not likely isnt important, none of it is likely, but better placed, better analogy, better words, better story, more reasonable, better immersion, better use of mechanics. the world gets blown up. we can use history as an example but its still fantasy. Universal and United civilisation arent common, theres only been one in existance ever, Christendom, its something really specific. Why would they now be the only thing to develop out of the ruins of a society that doesnt even have the concept of them, where on the whole people cant even understand the idea of them, not one thing among many different systems?.
Maybe if its canada being able to have Crusades that youre concerned about give it moslem mechanics so if it ever forms an empire than empire would be able to call them. But really Crusades, a co-ordination of independent realms in single action, isnt something the modern world has been bale to pull off but if its just as a way to have 'religion group' war-goals and not mean anything more than that then sure why not.

As to Texas, does it need to be there? no it could be anywhere, whichever governor was president at the time probably, texas just works game wise as thats the two schismatics fighting each other. Texas and Mexico both within the unity but not so guaranteed of its support makes for a balanced and interesting situation. Does there need to be a second President at all? No, but i think most people would like a byzantine option and an orthodox equivalent and that can be it. it could well be Canada for the orthodox division, but then you'd miss out having canada to conquer and be vikings from. But itd work just as well, but it wouldn't be different on the merits of it being canadian, but on that being where the political division and heresy found firm footing after having been brought into civilization. Not for having always been separate as then it wouldn't be the byzantine option but a separate civilisation and probably religion group.

The focus of this mod is America, not Canada. Canada is there and maybe an important part of the setting, but its not the focus. Its at the top of the map, out of the way and with a bad climate. America dominates half the map and the Latins the other. So America gets the 'best' mechanics, So america gets to be analogous to Christendom or Islam, the big players, Canada gets to be analogous to the vikings, the little players whos main role is to have helped form and as places to conquer. Who are awesome and probably more fun to play from a story perspective anyway.
Vikings are cool but CK2 is about Christendom so the mechanics are set up to represent that best, the Mod is about America so its mechanics and specifics are set up for America first and everywhere else second. If every region is as complicated and interesting as we hope america will be, then the mod would never get finished as that would be more work than could ever plausibly be done. Thats why moslems and vikings arent playable in Ck, it diverts work from the focus of the game so would make everywhere playable, but pale and boring. Instead of one place playable but immersive and interesting, and modders have less resources than developers do. The Latin World is just using CK2s catholic stuff to avoid that problem so all needs to be modded and worked on is America. But if Canada, or the west or the rest need all that too then its not going to happen, the mod stops being a plan and starts becoming a hopeless fantasy.

Why is it so important to you that they be another christian equivalent, with another set of the same mechanics, instead of something that only they are, in a role that only they fill, and with mechanics and localisations to make them look, play and feel different? As it is important to you. Its not because its a flawed idea or a wrong idea its that its an idea that goes against something important to you, why? just because youre canadian so want to see canada get the best of everything regardless of how that leaves the rest of the mod of the idea as a whole? Basically, whats the problem? not in quibbles and complaints about everything everyone else says, but clear, what do you want this mod to be and why? As alot of this just sounds like you want Canada as the focus of the mod, which while cool wouldnt be what most people here are after.
Maybe the problem is you want a completely different mod than I and the others posting on this thread do, maybe you want the same mod but with a couple minor changes. But arguing and being aggressive is getting no where, So What do you want?

 

[unmerged(73974)]

Hey guys, I've been following this thread for a while and I can definitely say that no matter how it shapes up, it's one of the mods I'll definitely be using for CK2!

Lots of stuff

Orinsul, you're getting really, really defensive about this with little reason to. Simulated Knave has some pretty good ideas, I think, and he doesn't seem to be pushing them in a particularly harsh, whiny, or mean way.

Honestly, I have no opinion at all whether or not a rights based religion would have the former Judicial or Legislative branch as its caretakers...and I don't think it much matters. Judges could be local, provincial, and federal, just as legislators in Town Councils as well as County, State, and Federal Legislatures. If I had to choose, I'd go with Orinsul's suggestion of the legislature simply because it both sounds cooler and it is easier to come up with new names for a Legislative Assembly(look, I just did it!) that may be called rather than a new name for courts.

If I'm understanding correctly, we currently have a *Catholic Mexico, a *Pagan Carribean, a *Protestant (Rights based?) East Coast and Texas, and an *Orthodox West Coast, which has its roots in a schism from the *Protestant East Coast/Texas.

Why not cut the West Coast out entirely (did I miss in the thread when this was added back in?), and make Canada into a *Orthodox power with *Pagans on its fringes (much like...Novgorod? Or perhaps Sweden? In CK1). You could split the mechanics of the game as: [Catholic = America/Texas] [Pagan = Carribean/Northern "wastes"] [Orthodox = "Canada" (Ontario and Quebec? Maybe split those two and make one of 'em *Pagan?)] and [Islam = Mexico/Latino culture]

This way, each group has representation in the game, and East Coast/Texas (the focus of and most powerful single "civilization" in the game) has challenges on all sides--Tropical Viking Carribean Raiders, a nearly equal, hostile Mexico, a slightly more friendly and weaker Canada that is unable to vassalized without claiming the Canadian *Emperorship, and a split amongst the *Catholics into Texas and the East Coast. You could even use Mongol mechanics and have a swarm of...uh...rabid Californians spring from the Great Plains and attack each major group--the Plains border every power except the *Pagans, which I suppose will be having a difficult time of it anyways.

 

[Gloa]

Hey guys, I've been following this thread for a while and I can definitely say that no matter how it shapes up, it's one of the mods I'll definitely be using for CK2!



Orinsul, you're getting really, really defensive about this with little reason to. Simulated Knave has some pretty good ideas, I think, and he doesn't seem to be pushing them in a particularly harsh, whiny, or mean way.

Honestly, I have no opinion at all whether or not a rights based religion would have the former Judicial or Legislative branch as its caretakers...and I don't think it much matters. Judges could be local, provincial, and federal, just as legislators in Town Councils as well as County, State, and Federal Legislatures. If I had to choose, I'd go with Orinsul's suggestion of the legislature simply because it both sounds cooler and it is easier to come up with new names for a Legislative Assembly(look, I just did it!) that may be called rather than a new name for courts.

If I'm understanding correctly, we currently have a *Catholic Mexico, a *Pagan Carribean, a *Protestant (Rights based?) East Coast and Texas, and an *Orthodox West Coast, which has its roots in a schism from the *Protestant East Coast/Texas.

Why not cut the West Coast out entirely (did I miss in the thread when this was added back in?), and make Canada into a *Orthodox power with *Pagans on its fringes (much like...Novgorod? Or perhaps Sweden? In CK1). You could split the mechanics of the game as: [Catholic = America/Texas] [Pagan = Carribean/Northern "wastes"] [Orthodox = "Canada" (Ontario and Quebec? Maybe split those two and make one of 'em *Pagan?)] and [Islam = Mexico/Latino culture]

I haven't been paying too much attention to the last few posts, but I'm pretty sure what we have is:
A "catholic"-esque East Coast, with an HRE-esque United States of America, and a well accepted "religion" throughout America.
An "orthodox/byzantine"-esque united states in the Texas region
A religion without supreme leadership in Canada (vaguely Norse)
A "sunni" and "shia"-esque Mexican and Latin civilization dynamic (although they use more sunni and catholic game mechanics)
"mongol"-esque invaders from the Great Plains (from California and further). The West coast didn't get added in, but we refer to this as the Westerners a lot.
"pagan"-esque Carribean, New England, and other pockets of people on the fringes of the civilizations

 

[Jaol]

Quick post, so I'll reply to other points later:

..I'm really not sure I follow you on the whole natural joining thing.

What I meant (and it may not be how the mechanics actually work, but this is how I think they work) is that we can set some areas "pagan" areas as de jure part of the empire, and then they will automatically be counted as imperial territory whenever they are owned by any American religion state, regardless of whether that state has the imperial title or not.

I think it'd depend on the context. The Hapsburgs inherited Hungary as Hapsburgs, after all, not as the Emperor. Going out and conquering things as the HRE would, IMO, kind of obligate you to keep them in the Empire.

If I understand the mechanics correctly, there's no such thing as the Empire conquering a state in the game. Everything is one dynasty or another. So it's always going to be the emperor inheriting/capturing a kingdom himself.

Re. the Canadian empire, what about this: Canada has an empire-tier title, but we just give it a name that clearly distinguishes it from the "universal" empires of the Americans and Latins. Sort of a High King/King-of-Kings type title. In other words we'd be using the empire tier to represent two different sorts of overlords. For the Americans and Latins, it represents a ruler who claims to be the head of the "religion", for the Canadians, it's a ruler who claims to just be the most powerful of all the petty kingdoms in an area. It would be vacant at first, but a sufficiently powerful Canadian leader could be like the great Khan and unite all the tribes so to speak.

Does that satisfy everyone? It gives players a clear goal in Canada, while still keeping them distinct from the Americans.

 

[unmerged(91168)]

Orinsul

it doesnt stay everywhere it is now the whole way, as then it wouldn't be a united it would either be one massive country or lots of little entirely independent with no unity [i.e. pagan mechanics]. For the politically Independent but still part of the corporate civilisation, it needs a initially weak authority that reclaims places for civilisation and brings them into it but is unable to dominate them politically. i.e not an empire conquering but the Church converting.

...The Church didn't work that way.

Indeed, I can't think of an example of 'recivilization' that did.

it might have been the Courts, but it shouldnt as their too narrow and small a thing to start with, one purpose, one function, one symbol, law and justice. Not a Nation, not a Civilisation, not a Society, but the law and justice of a nation.

Except the American religion doesn't encompass a society. Culture encompasses societies (or, at least, more of them than religion does). Religion is narrower. Religion transcends different societies. If the religion were so sweepingingly broad in its dictates, you'd have a theocracy, not a secular state with a religion. The religion is a set of broadly agreed upon principles involving universal rights etc.

Narrow is good for creating a religion. Narrow principles for all people. Congress, on the other hand, creates broad principles for a select group.

is there any actual problem with it being congress and congressional?

Yes. I've told you before, but let's add to the list. Congress is not the source of the principles that would be part of the American religion, nor their chief defender. Its singular location doesn't work for creating a broad religion. Its concerned with temporal governance, not with the interpretation of and maintenance of higher moral principles. It doesn't have the confidence of the people necessary to create a religion. There are large areas where Congress has no authority over states at all. It's not the supreme authority in the US (The President might be (he can veto Congress, after all, and is the head of government). Or the judiciary might be (since their decisions apply to everyone in the US). But Congress simply isn't).

And that's probably not even a complete list.

If it was Courts would it be the Church or would it be an Imperial Title using moslem mechanics? If it was courts it wouldnt be representation of and for, it wouldnt be the government over all places it would be justice and law. Tyrants with a strict code, not a great and flourishing civilisation.

The President doesn't have any authority over the Supreme Court beyond appointing its members (and I could see that falling by the wayside as soon as the actual presidency collapsed).

And what, exactly, do you think the church is if not a power that tells people what is and is not moral and just?

the world gets blown up. we can use history as an example but its still fantasy. Universal and United civilisation arent common, theres only been one in existance ever, Christendom, its something really specific.

Christendom wasn't universal and united. For one thing, the Emperor and the Pope went to war a few times. Then there were the anti-popes...

it could well be Canada for the orthodox division, but then you'd miss out having canada to conquer and be vikings from. But itd work just as well, but it wouldn't be different on the merits of it being canadian, but on that being where the political division and heresy found firm footing after having been brought into civilization. Not for having always been separate as then it wouldn't be the byzantine option but a separate civilisation and probably religion group.

You could justify the difference in that the Canadian and American systems are originally similar, but different enough to produce, well, something different. Similar enough they might get along, not so similar they would merge.

Though I think that's not likely to work on a geographic level, in any case. As well as with the raider history idea.

The focus of this mod is America, not Canada. Canada is there and maybe an important part of the setting, but its not the focus. Its at the top of the map, out of the way and with a bad climate. America dominates half the map and the Latins the other. So America gets the 'best' mechanics, So america gets to be analogous to Christendom or Islam, the big players, Canada gets to be analogous to the vikings, the little players whos main role is to have helped form and as places to conquer. Who are awesome and probably more fun to play from a story perspective anyway.

And, at least to me, capping off my awesome story by creating an empire, rebuilding the lost glories of ancient Canada, and marching south to ravage my enemies as in the glory days of old would be very fun indeed.

If every region is as complicated and interesting as we hope america will be, then the mod would never get finished as that would be more work than could ever plausibly be done.

First, I'm pretty sure the stated intent on several occasions has been to make every faction playable.

Second, adding an imperial title to Canada is about fifteen seconds' work. And if you want it all to be conquerable, then it has to be worked through properly anyway.

Why is it so important to you that they be another christian equivalent, with another set of the same mechanics, instead of something that only they are, in a role that only they fill, and with mechanics and localisations to make them look, play and feel different?

The role you seem to want them to fill is "targets for the Americans." I do not think this is the exciting role you may think.

As alot of this just sounds like you want Canada as the focus of the mod, which while cool wouldnt be what most people here are after.

I want Canada to be a unique and characterful option I would enjoy playing. I made two proposals: have Atlantic Canada be playable/Canadian, and have the Canadians be able to form an empire.

That's hardly making them the focus of the mod. I'd argue it's just making them a reasonable option to play.

You keep insisting that this will somehow ruin game balance and everything, but all it really seems to change is your conception of the backstory.

So What do you want?

I'll post that shortly.

* * *

GrinningSatyr

You could even use Mongol mechanics and have a swarm of...uh...rabid Californians spring from the Great Plains and attack each major group--the Plains border every power except the *Pagans, which I suppose will be having a difficult time of it anyways.

I fear you've successfully recreated the existing concept on what to do with the West Coast.

* * *

Jaol

What I meant (and it may not be how the mechanics actually work, but this is how I think they work) is that we can set some areas "pagan" areas as de jure part of the empire, and then they will automatically be counted as imperial territory whenever they are owned by any American religion state, regardless of whether that state has the imperial title or not.

...And what would that mean?

Re. the Canadian empire, what about this: Canada has an empire-tier title, but we just give it a name that clearly distinguishes it from the "universal" empires of the Americans and Latins. Sort of a High King/King-of-Kings type title. In other words we'd be using the empire tier to represent two different sorts of overlords. For the Americans and Latins, it represents a ruler who claims to be the head of the "religion", for the Canadians, it's a ruler who claims to just be the most powerful of all the petty kingdoms in an area. It would be vacant at first, but a sufficiently powerful Canadian leader could be like the great Khan and unite all the tribes so to speak.

See, this whole idea of a universal Emperor just...isn't. It didn't happen that way, and if the mod does that it's not paralleling history. Which is OK, but should probably be acknowledged.

Honestly, I don't really like that idea. I think a Canadian empire is perfectly justifiable and reasonable on the basis of being leader of all Canadians (and, perhaps, as a reaction to a big scary American empire to the south). It wouldn't necessarily have to be a universal one, in any case.

Just because Orinsul is obsessed with an ahistorical idea of universal empires doesn't make him right.

Does that satisfy everyone? It gives players a clear goal in Canada, while still keeping them distinct from the Americans.

Dude, they're a different religion group, with a different power structure, different territories, and a big bloody expansionist empire sitting next to them.

If that's not enough to differentiate them from the Americans, there's no point in even having them at all.

 

[Orinsul]

for all religion groups to be playable and exactly the same as each other is easy, to have all religions group playable an entirely new is impossible. So the best way is to have all playable, and one new and the others using CK events or mechanics or light variations there of. I want them all to be playable, so they cant all be complicated.
I want Canada to be a unique, character, playable and interesting option, which is why i dont want it the same with different labels from America.
And nothing about my proposal stops you from being able to play as canada, form an empire and conquer south. It makes doing exactly that more fun, as using the pagan mechanics makes it as a modern nation and more importantly, makes it different from playing america. Makes conquering those provinces mean something as same place, different rules. rather than it just being changing the colour of the map and nothing but.

Christendom was United and Universal, you just dont understand how those words are being used in this context, youre looking at it from a modern perspective and that doesnt work, read anything by any catholic historian or not even history, modern conversationalist if you want to learn but probably you dont. The Church did reclaim civilisation, read actual history of the Church or middle ages before coming out and calling things ahistorical or wrong.
Religion is broad, which is why it doesnt rule, states and kings are narrow in function and focus which is why they do. Narrow is what destroys religions, narrow is the definition of heresy. Broad truths and principles are for everyone, narrow is only for one type of people in one type of place.
Congress has the better words associated with it and better ideas. Both have equal claim to being able to be the base, but that doesnt make them both equal to the purpose.
The Church is equating to the Federal Government. As with the church and secular states, it is what binds them together in common civilisation. The Bishops serve as represents of the Church in a country and in Rome and in the councils they serve as representives of their see, this equates to Representives and Senators perfectly. It is not over one state or country but all regardless of their laws or type of government, but over everything. The Church is Democratic, as is congress, Judges are not and have never been, Church reforms and decisions are made by Councils and agreements, again the same and oh all the things ive said over and over again, Congress the best and most suited to the task, the shape and terms. Moral Authority comes from the development not the origin, origin would have no effect. Moral Authority is deserved by restoring civilisation.

Its what it does and how it acts and what it brings, not what it was. Action not name, any warlord could call himself a judge, senator or a representative and act like a king, its how they act that counts. what not who.
It doesnt need the confidence of the people, it gets it by restoring the nation by its actions not its name, its not a modern day scenario. The Supreme Court would have any confidence or respect either. nothing would, people would look at the Supreme Court as a king proclaiming himself and passing judgements. Whereas Congress isnt a claim and order, it is an institution not making judgements from a closed executive cabinet but a house of representives, a council made up of those under it, making compromises and gaining support for actions to do them, not just commanding on the grounds of presumed authority. The Authority and the confidence being earned, and then spread and spread not on the grounds of support us and we'll demand things of you, but you come in line with our laws and structure and society and you will have say in, we'll put your man in congress to represent you.
Federal Government, under an independant Congress. The House of Representatives. a civilisation built on the notion of democracy and representation. Not on Law and Order and Structure as the Courts would be. On one that as it expands Gets Bigger! not just has the same power over more people. As it grows it broadens. A decentralised but united civilisation, different states and countries within the same 'nation', Congress not as the ruler over all, but the government over many rulers. Decisions made by consensus, the high ideals of Democracy and Representation and Natural Laws in the place of Christianity as the commonality.
Not the laws of the Nation the Nation as the civilisation. It is the best comparison the only i will suffer. It is the Broader concept, the more interesting and the better story, shape and analogy. The thing over all things, the thing that regulations and commands one aspect of some things. The thing that governs over countries, the thing that governs over states. Kingdoms = States, what all states answer to but are not controlled by is Congress, what states represents and is represented by is Congress. Not the Courts, the Courts is a rule not an organisation, it does not lead it orders, it is not the nation, it is not the government, it is its Justice and only its justice. It is not its civilisation. And it doesnt have as many or as good names and is a broader and better setting and story, it is democracy and representation and universal, it is everything not just one thing, not authoritive, not narrow, not as the courts are and would be.
And yes you can quibble here that currently the federal power is greater than states, in this setting that is decentralised thats not the point. As always modern conditions are not exactly how it would always be, modern opinions and poll results are not important. If two things are the same they need not have anything in common in the setting unless they developed along side another in concert.

 

[unmerged(174602)]

American post-apocalyptic universe? Original? No offence, but are you living under a rock?!

I would like a similar mod, but the first requirement would be that it wasn't in the USA...again...like it always is.

 

[Jaol]

I want Canada to be a unique and characterful option I would enjoy playing. I made two proposals: have Atlantic Canada be playable/Canadian, and have the Canadians be able to form an empire.

That's hardly making them the focus of the mod. I'd argue it's just making them a reasonable option to play.

I agree.

I take it Orinsul wants to save the empire-tier titles for the two big religion groups (American-Texan, and Latin-Mexican) because these "religions" have some sort of universal ambitions. For the Latins it's the idea of Catholic civilization, for the Americans it's natural rights or democracy (what exactly seems to be in dispute). Both sides think they have the best way of life, and want to spread this around the world. So, since their religions have some sort of universal claims, giving them a 4th-level state will represent how these universal ideas get translated onto the political level. The empire-tier title will represent someone who claims to be more than just an ordinary monarch, to have some special source of legitimacy connected to what their "religion" revers (for the Americans it's a link back to the old USA, for the Latins, I'm not sure what we had in mind). The empire-tier mechanic works well for this, and it lets us easily set up tensions between the pope and emperor as they vie for leadership within the religion, and the emperor and other monarchs as they dispute his special claims.

Since the Canadian religion is set up to not have these universal ambitions (they won't crusade, there isn't a head of the religion who claims to represent the spiritual union all of the Canadians, etc.), they aren't going to have this distinction between normal monarchs and the special monarch who has more of a connection to some higher authority. Kings are Kings because of their secular authority. Perhaps they all claim some mythical line of succession back to the old nation of Canada, but there's not a guy who claims to be the true secular head of Canada and has his claim widely respected. Orinsul wants represent this mechanically, by giving Canada only 3rd-tier and lower titles.

I like the setup where Canada doesn't have an equivalent to the American President, but why does that have to mean no empire at all? Why not just use the same empire-tier mechanic to represent a High King, rather than someone who claims a "special" imperial title with religious significance? All the empire-tier really means in-game is you can have vassals who have vassals who have vassals, a different demesne limit, etc.. It doesn't have any inherent connection to religion. So I don't see any reason why a strong Canadian King couldn't unite the various petty kingdoms and call himself King-of-Kings. It's not going to feel at all the same as the American Empire, since the religion mechanics will be different, there won't be electors etc. So, you don't have to worry about the religion groups being too similar. And giving Canada a 4th-tier title would definitely make them more fun to play.

Re. the imperial title itself and what sort of universal implications it had in real life, there's a long thread on that called "empires!" or something similar (short version: the title involved some sort of claim to represent the legitimate successor to the Roman empire, and therefore to be the be the head of Christendom, but in actual practice, things were far more complicated (the HRE and the Byzantines recognized each other as legitimate Christian empires, for example). In any event, it doesn't really matter for the mod, which can use the empire-tier mechanics however we want.

Re. New England being a de jure part of the empire. The de jure provinces of the empire are the province that have imperial claims stored on the map files. IIRC, any province with an imperial claim will automatically join the empire if the emperor and its ruler are of the same religion. If the province is not part of the de jure empire, then it will not join. I'm thinking of New England like the Prussian provinces, which were added to the HRE as they were conquered. If the Duke of the Hudson captures Connecticut, it will automatically be added to the Empire; if he captures Quebec, it won't.

Re. mutants. I'd avoid them. It commits us to a backstory of nuclear war. I like leaving the backstoy a bit vague, so it could have been war, it could have been a volcano, it could have been a plague, etc. Also, would there even be visible mutations so long after the disaster. Weren't the mutated animals around Chernobyl mainly in the first decade or so?

 

[unmerged(91168)]

My proposal for how things work:
Generic disaster (involving some nuclear warfare) hits the world. Much wailing, gnashing of teeth.

In America: Being the most powerful nation in the world (and probably having started it), America is a primary target. Much, if not all, of the area around Washington is devastated (as are most major cities). Radiation and devastation cuts New England off from the rest of the US. Civilization, slowly but surely, collapses and devolves. Electronic sources of information are lost. Books are burnt for warmth or in warfare. Knowledge becomes something to be feared, the source of warfare, calamity and ruin. The federal government effectively disintegrates, with only some vestiges of the legislative and judicial branches remaining. The presidency falls, and is forgotten. States of emergency are declared across the nation, and elections suspended until the emergency ends. In many states, governors assume power, while some others collapse so that organization exists only in counties or towns. Civilization as we know it ends.

Times are grim. To justify the excesses they must commit, various local authorities support the remainder of the federal judiciary (with the tacit expectation that the federal judiciary will support them as well). This arrangement works relatively smoothly, with the various lords claiming their right to rule under the Constitution, and the judiciary supporting them in this, while the lords agree to abide by the decisions of the judiciary when matters are brought before them.

Initially, people recognize this for the cynical power grab it is, but the various government authorities still have a lot of guns. By the time the bullets run out over a century later, what was once only lip service has become believed. The judges of the courts believe they defend the rights laid out in the Constitution (for all that the interpretation of many of those rights bears no resemblance to what we know today). The lords believe that they rightfully derive their offices from the Constitution and federal laws of the United States (and adopt appropriate titles to prove it). The people believe that they have the universal rights given them by the Constitution and laws, that the judiciary know the meaning of the Constitution and laws, and that the lords are their rightful rulers according to that Constitution and those laws. Elections go unheld, though the people grumble, but emergencies are emergencies.

This is not universal, of course. In other areas, local lords hold power through force, or fear, or by appealing to gods or demons. Sometimes, they sweep into an American territory as raiders, or stay as conquerors. But those who stay discover the legitimacy of the Constitution so useful that they soon adopt it, and others outside the American territories also see its usefulness. Slowly but surely, Americanism spreads across the continent.

Back near the smoldering ruins of Washington, humanity has started to reclaim the land. The local barbarian chiefs are constantly feuding, warring back and forth over matters important and trivial. And in one such war, an outnumbered chief, out of nothing so much as desperation, proclaims himself American (inspired by an exiled judge from Ohio), and thus the rightful ruler of Washington.

This would not matter at all, except that he won his war, and decided there might be something to this Americanism after all. And, if he is now the rightful ruler of Washington, this must mean that he is the rightful President. His exiled judge is more than happy to support this claim (especially in return for the former chief's support of his claim to being Chief Justice).

Again, this would not matter at all, except the former chief keeps winning war after war. He expands across the Appalachians, and south along the coast, sweeping all before him. Meanwhile, the Chief Justice is equally busy politicking, and through the use of diplomacy, carefully applied force, and naked bribery begins to spread the influence of his office across the continent again.

The chief's son is equally successful, pushing the imperial borders even further west and south. The Chief Justice's successor is even more successful than that, and soon virtually all the continent recognizes the superiority of the Justice of Washington.

This unparalleled expansion falters, however, with the chief's grandson. Through foolishness, he loses control of the southern empire to his younger brother. Through further foolishness, he quarrels with the Chief Justice. In a fit of pique, the Chief Justice claims that the national state of emergency is at an end, and that elections shall be held for the office of President when the current officeholder dies. The next winter brings pneuomonia, and thus an election before the Emperor can replace the rebellious pontiff. Elections are held, and the empire passes out of the hands of the dynasty that built it. The Federal Courts of the United States of America under the Constitution and the Law reign supreme.

The game can start any amount of time after that (I'd say no more than fifty-odd years, though).

America is thus an empire with a territory about where Jaol's map has it. The kingdom to the south has a claim on the imperial throne, to add a bit of excitement to the proceedings. The 'papacy' is independent in Washington, and possibly some nearby provinces have fallen out of the empire. The catholic and HRE mechanics are used.

I think having a regular event where the Chief Justice demanded you hold elections (if the imperial law wasn't elective) would be a good thing. Ignoring it once gets him angry. Ignoring it twice gets you excommunicated.

In Canada: Canada was less devastated by nuclear fire than the US, and so the collapse of civilization was somewhat more orderly - but no less inevitable. Ottawa is gone, and the federal government with it. Alberta's resources were also targets. Canada becomes a memory. States of emergency are declared, and elections are suspended. Knowledge becomes anathema, blamed for the collapse (as are Americans). Legislative assemblies fall into disuse as problems become unmanageable on a provincial scale.

This orderly devolution, however, allows the trappings of state to survive at least somewhat intact. Canadian rulers claim the legitimate delegation of their authority from the Queen and Parliament (and are even right, at least initially). The judiciary generally follows their lead (fearful that the resentment of knowledge might transfer to them). Elections are still held at times, but candidates are rare, and usually limited (informally) to those already elected. In Quebec, authorities claim to derive their authority from the Queen, Parliament and the Nation.

The national religion is disparate, held together initially mostly by its common origins, resentment of the Americans, mistrust of knowledge, and the support of local rulers, eager to reinforce their legitimacy by shoring up memories of the Queen and Parliament (without, of course, reminding people too much of what that actually meant). The notion of responsible government becomes a sort of noblesse oblige, and its enforcement falls to the courts - rulers who violate what 'should be done' often find themselves censured, or even expelled from office.

Slowly, as the difficulties of the apocalypse die down, and the status quo becomes established, large-scale power begins to make a return. Sometimes local 'counts' band together willingly, sometimes by force. Titles become hereditary.* Trade springs up, and these expeditions encounter the burgeoning American territories to the south. With the now legendary responsibility of the Americans for the fall firmly in the mind of Canadians,** suggestions that the property of the weak Americans should become the property of strong Canadians are met with eager volunteers.

But the wealth a century or two of plunder brings encourages the self-importance of the various Canadian rulers. Soon, they war with each other, forgetting the Americans in their eagerness to establish their rule over one another.

And at this point, the American Empire starts rising up.

*Take a look at how often the same names come up in modern politics, and I think that's probably the easiest[/i thing to just handwave. I doubt everything should just be straight "eldest inherits" - but consanguinity would accurately reflect a remarkable amount of modern elections.
**The truth of that is neither here nor there, of course.

Canada, in this, would use either Muslim or Orthodox mechanics (they'd be less expansionist with Orthodox, and I think that'd probably represent things a little better - the religion's too wishy-washy to be big on crusading, IMO), and be in a separate religion group from the Americans.

Geographically, they'd be separated into one or two kingdoms west of Quebec (Ontario and Conquered Territories, basically), Quebec as either a single kingdom or a single kingdom and some unaffiliated duchies that can form a kingdom around Montreal, and Atlantic Canada as a bunch of unaffiliated duchies that can make two kingdoms (Nova Scotia and New Brunswick). I think Newfoundland's likely too far away to be worth including on the map, but if it was included I think it'd make sense as pagan.

I'd expect a few pagan provinces along the northern borders. Albertans might make a good north-Western horde (basically being the other spear of the Western invasion).

The Imperial title would be Governor-General, and would have to be created by a sufficiently powerful ruler. I think the Emperor would likely create the Supreme Court, so he'd dominate it. I think it'd make sense for the GG to claim authority from old Canada, but I don't really think anyone outside Canada would actually care whether he did or not (and I don't think it'd involve claiming any authority outside Canada). Practically, it can probably be left up to what the player thinks he's doing (cynical power-grab using old title, genuine attempt to reunify the religion, or some combination of the two).

In Texas: Events proceed much as in America, but the Texans are simply more independent (or just cynical). Their religion felt the presidency had failed them, and claimed state governors to be the rightful highest authorities in the land. The reappearance of the presidency thus provoked some worry among them, and one of their number was acclaimed as Supreme Governor to guard against American expansionism.

In Mexico: Slowly colonized from the north by the Texans and from the South by the South Americans. The religious colonization by the South Americans went smoother, and so the Mexicans are mostly of that religion (while physical control is split closer to fifty-fifty). The few remaining independent Mexican states are mostly a buffer zone between SA and the Texans.

As to what separates the Mexican religion from the South American - perhaps the Mexicans believe they should rule themselves with their own church? Seems enough, really. I think the Mexican empire should either be moribund or very, very weak.

In South America: As current, really. If the church supposedly survives at only one location, that's silly, but otherwise I think the idea's sound.

In the West: As current.

In the Caribbean: As current.

* * *

Jaol
I would think any ruler who claimed an imperial title would grab as much religious significance as he could find, if only to make it work better. Conveniently, if you conquer enough of a place to form an empire, the rest tend to fall into line whether they believe your religious pretensions or not...

Got it re: New England, and I agree re: mutants.

 

[Jaol]

That backstory seems sensible to me. Again, I'd prefer not to limit ourselves to one official version of what happened, but rather just use the backstories to help us come up with a reasonable setup for the mod.

So, in your version of events, Canada and the Canadian religion represent places that had a fairly gradual collapse from their past civilization and haven't had any sort of cultural renaissance.

I don't much like using Muslim/Orthodox mechanics for the Canadians though. Given your proposed backstory, I think Pagan mechanics (no head of religion) would work better. It seems like one of the defining features of the Canadians is their de-centralization--central authority gradually fell apart into separate fiefdoms, and the judges/"religion" leaders followed along with this rather setting up their own centralized system to oppose it. So a decentralized "religion" without an official head makes sense, IMO.

EDIT: If the Canadians do use Pagan mechanics, and have an empire-tier title, then we'd have the following set up:

American: Catholic mechanics, with kingdoms and an Empire
Texan: Orthodox mechanics, with kingdoms and an Empire

Mexican: Muslim mechanics, with duchies and an Empire
Latin: Catholic mechanics, divided into kingdoms with a potential empire

Canadian: Pagan mechanics, divided into kingdoms with a potential empire

Caribbean: Pagan mechanics, divided into kingdoms, no potential empire.

 

[Jaol]

Ok, a couple more points about Simulated Knave's proposed backstory.

1. I wouldn't stick too closely to Canadians = former Canadians, Americans = former Americans. These are religions mechanically, so they should be fairly flexible with conversions, etc. Perhaps a connection back to Canada was initially important, for these people, but now shared cultural links are more important than any historical link to Canada. For example, Detroit might convert to the Canadian religion in the game.
2. Also, I wouldn't go with Canadians think Americans somehow deserved to collapse--that more or less implies nuclear war, and I think we want the disaster to be more vague than that. I don't think we need any justification for the Canadians being raiders. In hard times people will fight over resources and merchants and pirates are often close to indistinguishable.
3. Whatever the Canadian empire-tier title is, it should be related back to the kingdom-tier title. If it's this odd throwback to the modern world, that makes them too similar to the Americans, IMO.
4. I thought you wanted an Atlantic power to balance things out? A kingdom of Halifax, say.

 

[Comrade Chaos]

Does there have to be nukes? Radiation this and that just makes the setting convoluted. Can't we just say some 'event' causes the modern US to regress into a medieval era? We don't need to destroy major cities for this to work.

 

[Nick B II]

Does there have to be nukes? Radiation this and that just makes the setting convoluted. Can't we just say some 'event' causes the modern US to regress into a medieval era? We don't need to destroy major cities for this to work.

The problem with not destroying the cities is that lots of tech is both trivial to recreate, and would be impossible to simulate using CK2.

Paratroopers, for example, require only knowledge of the Bernoulli principle and early 20th century engines. Which means we have to a) wipe out all knowledge of the principles that make tech work, or b) think of some reason they wouldn't want paratroopers. This does not necessarily require nuking every city, but certainly requires something equally catastrophic.

Nick

 

[Gloa]

The problem with not destroying the cities is that lots of tech is both trivial to recreate, and would be impossible to simulate using CK2.

Paratroopers, for example, require only knowledge of the Bernoulli principle and early 20th century engines. Which means we have to a) wipe out all knowledge of the principles that make tech work, or b) think of some reason they wouldn't want paratroopers. This does not necessarily require nuking every city, but certainly requires something equally catastrophic.

Nick

Although nuking stuff wouldn't completely solve even that issue (since there's not enough nukes to destroy every place where there might be such information). Presumably in the years after the apocalypse, when the only thing people are concerned about is basic survival, petty battles, neglect, and collapse can destroy a lot of whatever survived the main catastrophes. Maybe there were economic disturbances or minor disasters before the catastrophe as well (if a lot of stuff grows increasingly dependent on computer technology and the internet, taking that down by virus, neglect, cosmic rays, whatever will take out a lot of information, for example).

Cities don't have to be destroyed instantly (and it's really hard to figure out a scenario which would destroy enough of them instantly without killing too many people) - presumably whatever disaster happened is followed by a long enough period of neglect, scavenging, and fighting that takes out any leftover knowledge banks that people can understand and utilize.

 

[Orinsul]

I agree.

I take it Orinsul wants to save the empire-tier titles for the two big religion groups (American-Texan, and Latin-Mexican) because these "religions" have some sort of universal ambitions. For the Latins it's the idea of Catholic civilization, for the Americans it's natural rights or democracy (what exactly seems to be in dispute). Both sides think they have the best way of life, and want to spread this around the world. So, since their religions have some sort of universal claims, giving them a 4th-level state will represent how these universal ideas get translated onto the political level. The empire-tier title will represent someone who claims to be more than just an ordinary monarch, to have some special source of legitimacy connected to what their "religion" revers (for the Americans it's a link back to the old USA, for the Latins, I'm not sure what we had in mind). The empire-tier mechanic works well for this, and it lets us easily set up tensions between the pope and emperor as they vie for leadership within the religion, and the emperor and other monarchs as they dispute his special claims.

.........

I want to reserve religion leaders for the big two, so they are the only two that are that specific kind of civilisation, Canada can have an empire level title all it wants but like you said, its not a universal authority just a more powerful secular king, A Canadian might conquer kings and be King of Kings, but king of the kings he has as vassals, not of all kings everywhere because its a different type of civilisation that doesnt work that way, is different, so as long as its not in play at the start of the game and doesnt use the same localisations and is quite hard to put together [so the play can do it, but generally the AI wont be able to pull it off every time] thatd be brilliant. Mostly exactly as you said.
Canada doesnt need a religion leader or a universal religion and to make it unique and more characterful itd be better if it didnt.
And Natural Rights and Democracy rolled up into one big thing. Just as Catholicism is athousand things altogether, noth natural rights AND democracy are america not a tyrrany of judges who enforce natural rights and place themselves as unquestionable kings. but Congress working with, representing and leading to make sure natural rights are upheld and binding together the religion group not as they all submit to the common tyrant but because they are all included in it, are part of it. The religion head mechanic not just representing a different type of emperor and religion a different type of subject, but a universal civilisation and its 'democratic' government.

Re. mutants. I'd avoid them. It commits us to a backstory of nuclear war. I like leaving the backstoy a bit vague, so it could have been war, it could have been a volcano, it could have been a plague, etc. Also, would there even be visible mutations so long after the disaster. Weren't the mutated animals around Chernobyl mainly in the first decade or so?

I like leaving the backstory vague too, but mutants are cool. Canticle has mutants the whole way through so who knows. Bastards work just as well, but i was just thinking to make something to make this world alittle harder. Not the world recovered and everything is fine, but the world recovered, but sometimes kids arent born right or infertility is higher or something like that. just as a small thing to show that everythings not fine.
Anyway mutants could come from meteor strike or plague or nuclear disaster or chemicals or just another bottle-necking, so it wouldnt unvague it. But probably youre right and its not needed or even that good but it could be cool. No worries

New England as prussia would be good. Maybe it could go further and be anatolia too, so not just de jure part of the Empire because it shares similiar culture or geography, just happens to be currently heathen, but maybe it could be an original part of the empire that was lost during the dark ages just for a little more story and motive to recapture it for the President specifically rather than just for anyone.

Although nuking stuff wouldn't completely solve even that issue (since there's not enough nukes to destroy every place where there might be such information). Presumably in the years after the apocalypse, when the only thing people are concerned about is basic survival, petty battles, neglect, and collapse can destroy a lot of whatever survived the main catastrophes. Maybe there were economic disturbances or minor disasters before the catastrophe as well (if a lot of stuff grows increasingly dependent on computer technology and the internet, taking that down by virus, neglect, cosmic rays, whatever will take out a lot of information, for example).

Cities don't have to be destroyed instantly (and it's really hard to figure out a scenario which would destroy enough of them instantly without killing too many people) - presumably whatever disaster happened is followed by a long enough period of neglect, scavenging, and fighting that takes out any leftover knowledge banks that people can understand and utilize.

Exactly, if it takes three or four generations before life is easy then its not a problem, if it takes twenty generations [like the dark ages] then its really no problem. All rome did was fall apart, but even so the harrying by barbarians and vikings and moslems of christendom was so great that high civilisation was lost as everyone was too busy just trying to survive, the middle ages being the period after the siege was lifted and there was time for culture and science and art and you get the great progressive era known as the high middle ages. If the world doesnt just break but gets blown up or frozen or poisoned or hit by something hard or overrun with zombies or nuked then whether or not things survive initially, they wont change or effect anything. Technology isnt the miracle cure, one city, athousand and one cities arent going to make a difference. Life is what matters, not tanks. Life is what people focus on.

 

[unmerged(91168)]

Jaol

So, in your version of events, Canada and the Canadian religion represent places that had a fairly gradual collapse from their past civilization and haven't had any sort of cultural renaissance.

Basically, yes.

I don't much like using Muslim/Orthodox mechanics for the Canadians though. Given your proposed backstory, I think Pagan mechanics (no head of religion) would work better. It seems like one of the defining features of the Canadians is their de-centralization--central authority gradually fell apart into separate fiefdoms, and the judges/"religion" leaders followed along with this rather setting up their own centralized system to oppose it. So a decentralized "religion" without an official head makes sense, IMO.

Keep in mind, though, that the only religion in the Middle Ages that had a central head was the Catholic Church. Everyone else was much more decentralized - the Patriarch of Constantinople is really only the first among equals, and the Muslim hierarchy is...confused, at best.

I actually think Muslim mechanics would work best (now that I think about it more) - someone who manages to hammer together an imperial claim also assumes the authority to command the religion (appointing the Supreme Court and judges). Without that, they're fairly decentralized (though consistent with each other). I think pagan is almost too decentralized.

So, basically, they're pagans unless you put a lot of effort into it (since I don't think the Muslim mechanics do much without having a Caliph).

Mexican: Muslim mechanics, with duchies and an Empire

Why are they Muslim, out of curiosity? I don't necessarily mind, I'm just not clear on why.

Whatever the Canadian empire-tier title is, it should be related back to the kingdom-tier title. If it's this odd throwback to the modern world, that makes them too similar to the Americans, IMO.

I'd been figuring the Canadian kingdom titles would generally be something like Premier Governor, and that the kingdom title'd be Governor-General. Keep in mind, the Canadians have fairly solid continuity of titles - the title might mean something completely different, but I'd expect the name to be an existing one.

I thought you wanted an Atlantic power to balance things out? A kingdom of Halifax, say.

Good point. I guess I'd ask how big this map is going to be? I mean, if PEI is six provinces, an Atlantic kingdom or two is fine. If PEI is three, one would be a better limit. If PEI is one, I think duchies would be best.

* * *
Orinsul

Canada doesnt need a religion leader or a universal religion and to make it unique and more characterful itd be better if it didnt.

Except not having a religion leader doesn't really do much other than take away options and possibilities. It doesn't change your interaction with your religion, it just basically eliminates it.

And Natural Rights and Democracy rolled up into one big thing. Just as Catholicism is athousand things altogether, noth natural rights AND democracy are america not a tyrrany of judges who enforce natural rights and place themselves as unquestionable kings.

Which isn't what I proposed. They place other people as kings. They have little or no secular authority themselves.

Furthermore, you've said repeatedly how just because something is American today doesn't mean it has to be in the mod. So voting clearly means something different in the far future. The American religion in the future simply believes that only certain people should have the right to vote (i.e. nobles). Or the various legislatures simply rubberstamp everything the executive suggests - the various historical parliaments in CK1 played little or no role.

New England as prussia would be good. Maybe it could go further and be anatolia too, so not just de jure part of the Empire because it shares similiar culture or geography, just happens to be currently heathen, but maybe it could be an original part of the empire that was lost during the dark ages just for a little more story and motive to recapture it for the President specifically rather than just for anyone.

When I dared to suggest that Crusade targets for the Americans involve places that were once their possessions, you kicked up an unholy fuss about how the past had nothing to with the present of the mod...

I don't mind you complaining about every idea I put forth. I do mind if you're just doing it because you didn't come up with the ideas.

 

[Sputmint]

I'd like to think that in this mod the US's pope of nations or HRE mechanic doesn't stretch all the way across the continent, and i think that US and Canadian NWCs would be closely related religiously and otherwise.

I expect great things from this mod.