StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How are we set for religion? Although the time period is historically post-Reformation, the Church can still be a going concern.

Raxmei wrote:How are we set for religion? Although the time period is historically post-Reformation, the Church can still be a going concern.

Its going to be a fantasy styled world, which means everything will be pretty open ended relgion wise

Raxmei wrote:How are we set for religion? Although the time period is historically post-Reformation, the Church can still be a going concern.

New world so the church as we know it wouldn't exist. While I'd like a number of countries to share a common religion, (I suspect many of us don't really care who our people worship, guns are more fun) I'm not planning to have any form of strong central church set up as an independent body. But it's really a complexity, which I'm not sufficient familiar with to make calls on.

But for those people who are religiously inclined, they could have a very strong church dominating their individual nation. Amd If a couple people want to get together and set up a church and common religion and then kill each other over who loves it more, feel free.

I'd like to do this STGOD, but, if you approve, I would rather have a small group of people (4-7) that are very skilled and extremely well equipped, supported by a larger group of people (100-175) of less skilled and of average property to do limited fighting but mostly row the boat and drive the carts. We would travel the world in our boat, living and supporting ourselves though being mercenaries, while on a quest for.... something .

Average equipment on the ship would be cannons fired that white hot shot, at above average speed, and a strengthened hull that could absorb several of these blasts. Individually the grunts would have non-magical but finely made equipment, and the elite few would have finely made magically enchanted equipment. All magic imbued into the items are non-repeatable but need no maintaining. My crew would also be fanatically loyal to me.

I don't care about the time period, but if were making our own planet I would like mostly Islands (rather then large continents) populated by city states with large ports.


My home base is an island/mesa filled with caverns. A comet hit caused a lake to be formed apart from the ocean. On the flat top food is grown and in the caverns the light industry that supports my "navy" resides. About 1000 people live here (excluding my crew). Most social and civic activities are done on the beach.

Here for a cheap 10 minite diagram.

Revised Date Proposal: 1725 minimal

Having done some more research I'm proposing this as a new earliest possibul start date.

By this date the flintlock musket has completely replaced the matchlock and the pike is long gone. The value of mobile field artillery has also been demonstrated while the sap and parallel tactics of siege warfare have become fairly refined. Naval warfare is pretty much the same. Warfare on all fronts wont drasticly change from this point through the end of the Napoleonic wars when steam and shells show up.


I'm strongly favoring this timeframe as a minimal, because if we go earlier I think there's going to be a very rapid escalation in arms with everyone throwing down what pikes and matchlocks remain and forming armies with socket bayonet equipped flintlocks, assuming they don't start out that way. So starting in a period when that's not the case has little point.

So what are people's thoughts? I know some people are pushing for an earlier date, but I honestly don't think it would work and I also doubt most of the people who voted for a date more recent then 1805 would want to be part of something any much earlier.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Revised Date Proposal: 1725 minimal

Having done some more research I'm proposing this as a new earliest possibul start date.

By this date the flintlock musket has completely replaced the matchlock and the pike is long gone. The value of mobile field artillery has also been demonstrated while the sap and parallel tactics of siege warfare have become fairly refined. Naval warfare is pretty much the same. Warfare on all fronts wont drasticly change from this point through the end of the Napoleonic wars when steam and shells show up.


I'm strongly favoring this timeframe as a minimal, because if we go earlier I think there's going to be a very rapid escalation in arms with everyone throwing down what pikes and matchlocks remain and forming armies with socket bayonet equipped flintlocks, assuming they don't start out that way. So starting in a period when that's not the case has little point.

So what are people's thoughts? I know some people are pushing for an earlier date, but I honestly don't think it would work and I also doubt most of the people who voted for a date more recent then 1805 would want to be part of something any much earlier.

Post 1685 works fine--any period after Vauban started building fortresses and the socket bayonet was introduced. Most of the lack of progress in other countries was due to economic reasons, or simple backwardness (in places like Russia, OE, Persia, etc)--in the former case, we don't need to worry about that for the sack of the game. In the later.. Well, if someone wants to play a technologically primitive country I suppose that's fine, but there should perhaps be some limitations on advancing? It would have to be a challenge, after all.

Perhaps all of the player countries should be concentrated on one continent and basically the equivlant of this world's "western civilization", with NPCs on other continents to serve as targets for our vicious merchantilist exploiters. Don't forget some area like the HRE we can march troops through and devastate at will, too; that's always fun. The first is definitely just a thought, however, but a serious one, as travel times are pretty lengthy in this era, and if the countries are spread out it's going to take a long time to wage war--and if they're culturally nonhomogenous in a small area, it's just disconcerting.

Incidently, if anyone wishes to have their country chained to the shackles of unReason, I shall be creating a multinational monotheistic religion.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: In the later.. Well, if someone wants to play a technologically primitive country I suppose that's fine, but there should perhaps be some limitations on advancing? It would have to be a challenge, after all.

If someone opted to play a large but backwards empire they would be limited in their ability to advance, they couldn't build there own gun power arms or something nor afford imports or something like that. But I don't think anyone would want to be the Inca.

Perhaps all of the player countries should be concentrated on one continent and basically the equivlant of this world's "western civilization",

They will be

with NPCs on other continents to serve as targets for our vicious merchantilist exploiters.

That's the plan; the world will probably be less colonized then it was historically at this tech level. The need for more lumber to build fleets will be a prime concern. Some of the NPC powers may by fanciful.

Don't forget some area like the HRE we can march troops through and devastate at will, too; that's always fun.

I intent to fill out the main area of play with a bunch of worthlessly weak states.

Sea Skimmer wrote:
If someone opted to play a large but backwards empire they would be limited in their ability to advance, they couldn't build there own gun power arms or something nor afford imports or something like that. But I don't think anyone would want to be the Inca.

I was thinking more of the Ottoman Empire in this period, which managed to get through it (with the exception of the post siege of Vienna period) without serious territorial loss, unless you count the Crimean Khanate.

I intent to fill out the main area of play with a bunch of worthlessly weak states.

Make sure to name one the Palatinate. *grins*

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I was thinking more of the Ottoman Empire in this period, which managed to get through it (with the exception of the post siege of Vienna period) without serious territorial loss, unless you count the Crimean Khanate.

Wasn't that because no one had the time to invade them above all else?

Make sure to name one the Palatinate. *grins*

Perhapes you'd like two or three of them to keep you entertained for longer?

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Incidently, if anyone wishes to have their country chained to the shackles of unReason, I shall be creating a multinational monotheistic religion.

My nation shall not be shackled.

*raises hand*
To late to rear my ugly head and announce my interest in this game?

Anything which lets me have big Ships of the Line is something beautiful

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Incidently, if anyone wishes to have their country chained to the shackles of unReason, I shall be creating a multinational monotheistic religion.

I'll be the splitters from long ago.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Incidently, if anyone wishes to have their country chained to the shackles of unReason, I shall be creating a multinational monotheistic religion.

I'll go for a polytheistic religion, maybe 5 or so gods.

By the way, is it alright if my armies have better weaponry than the rest? I'm planning on being more focused on merchantilism and political stuff so I'd have only a few small armies with weapons which can fire a few dozen meters better than the competition, with canons that have maybe 50-75 meters more range.

Captain_Cyran wrote:
By the way, is it alright if my armies have better weaponry than the rest? I'm planning on being more focused on merchantilism and political stuff so I'd have only a few small armies with weapons which can fire a few dozen meters better than the competition, with canons that have maybe 50-75 meters more range.[/i]

Variations in batches of gun powder will give bigger alterations then that, such an advantage would be completely pointless as with both muskets and cannon the balls will fly further then they can be aimed or retain enough energy to go any damage. I suggest you give yourself some very up to date fortifications.

Dahak wrote:*raises hand*
To late to rear my ugly head and announce my interest in this game?

Anything which lets me have big Ships of the Line is something beautiful

I dont think it would be to much of a problem... And hey, woud our (Cran and I) little group of intermarried states?

I am running a sort of Germany/ britain combo... German language and culture... British navy

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

Dahak wrote:*raises hand*
To late to rear my ugly head and announce my interest in this game?

Anything which lets me have big Ships of the Line is something beautiful

I dont think it would be to much of a problem... And hey, woud our (Cran and I) little group of intermarried states?

I am running a sort of Germany/ britain combo... German language and culture... British navy

Well, being German, the rule is "The Empire hall rise again!!"

Anyway, I was thinking more along the line of a Prussian/Roman Empire, focussing on military, science, and culture.
What about the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations? It didn't deserve to go to the ash bin of history...

Dahak wrote:Anyway, I was thinking more along the line of a Prussian/Roman Empire, focussing on military, science, and culture.
What about the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations? It didn't deserve to go to the ash bin of history...

Yes it did. The only way to keep it together was to place it under strong leaders, and the system for picking the emperor was set up to prevent someone who could pull it off from being elected. The whole system was set up for mediocrity: The Emperor must be good enough to keep the borders secure, but not good enough to consolidate his own power. If there's one lesson that history has taught us about nation-states, it's that centralization succeeds. Confederations like the HRE in its later days can achieve only limited success.

I'm tossing some ideas around in my head. Pseudo-Byzantium and an improved Poland are sticking up most prominently.

Dahak wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

Dahak wrote:*raises hand*
To late to rear my ugly head and announce my interest in this game?

Anything which lets me have big Ships of the Line is something beautiful

I dont think it would be to much of a problem... And hey, woud our (Cran and I) little group of intermarried states?

I am running a sort of Germany/ britain combo... German language and culture... British navy

Well, being German, the rule is "The Empire hall rise again!!"

Anyway, I was thinking more along the line of a Prussian/Roman Empire, focussing on military, science, and culture.
What about the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations? It didn't deserve to go to the ash bin of history...

Works for me, if we can get rid of the "Holy" part. I would like my nation at least to be secular. No entral single emperor is needed. Simply a military and economic alliance btween sveral nations with intermarried royal families.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Works for me, if we can get rid of the "Holy" part. I would like my nation at least to be secular. No entral single emperor is needed. Simply a militry and economic alliance btween two nations with intermarried royal families.

Every time you play one of these games your nation is secular liberal. This time, it's just silly. Go back to 1725 and try to find a state that was secular. It just didn't happen. At best, the states involved tolerated religious minorities. And if you're a monarchy, it's even more strange.

I'll be taking the province of Württemburg

MKSheppard wrote:I'll be taking the province of Württemburg

Which one?
Württemberg-Baden, Baden-Württemberg, Württemberg-Hohenzollern?

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Captain_Cyran wrote:
By the way, is it alright if my armies have better weaponry than the rest? I'm planning on being more focused on merchantilism and political stuff so I'd have only a few small armies with weapons which can fire a few dozen meters better than the competition, with canons that have maybe 50-75 meters more range.[/i]

Variations in batches of gun powder will give bigger alterations then that, such an advantage would be completely pointless as with both muskets and cannon the balls will fly further then they can be aimed or retain enough energy to go any damage. I suggest you give yourself some very up to date fortifications.

My knowledge of war technology of this time period is VERY limited, to the point of non-existance. I really don't have a clue of how much better to make my stuff. Perhaps rifled muskets? *Shrug*

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Works for me, if we can get rid of the "Holy" part. I would like my nation at least to be secular. No entral single emperor is needed. Simply a militry and economic alliance btween two nations with intermarried royal families.

Every time you play one of these games your nation is secular liberal. This time, it's just silly. Go back to 1725 and try to find a state that was secular. It just didn't happen. At best, the states involved tolerated religious minorities. And if you're a monarchy, it's even more strange.

We arent playing on Earth, the date given is tech level, not cultural development.

We use a limited monarchy(similar to britain currently, though the monarch has a bit more power) and a couple centuries ago we had a kind that was similar to Henry the 8th, and wanted to divorce his wife, when the church said no, he abolished a state religion altogether instead of plintering off from the church as Henry did.

My nation isnt atheistic per se, just doesnt have a state-backed religion.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:We arent playing on Earth, the date given is tech level, not cultural development.

It's both. Or did you miss the question I asked Sea Skimmer about it?