Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
HanEmpire said:
That's a damn shame. The out-of-date thing is climate change, but the fact that forest-tending isn't being done properly is unacceptable.
How do we fix that? Religion reform?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Our universities will probably catch that up, because when they look at the amount of data they probably go.
"Wait, the priest used the Scientific Method, before, the scientific method? Let's use Scientific Methods on their practices them"

And it will probably work.
 
Malevolo said:
Our universities will probably catch that up, because when they look at the amount of data they probably go.
"Wait, the priest used the Scientific Method, before, the scientific method? Let's use Scientific Methods on their practices them"

And it will probably work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For the Intellectuals sure, but not for the common man. Something that's just right for a Ymaryn to do shouldn't be made into a for-profit enterprise, and that is what it'll take to re-instate the (bi?)annual forest sweeps at this rate unless we take Religious Reform.

EDIT: If you haven't realized already I really want these traits back.
Academia Nut said:
Personal Stewards of Nature
Through the blessings of the spirits and the efforts of the People in individual and whole, the land is reshaped, and its management and protection is a good above all others. No effort is to great when it comes to the stewardship of the land, and many pursue their own little projects where it does not conflict with the symphony of the whole
Pros: Bonuses to all actions relating to land management, bonuses when fighting on own terrain, additional Econ and Stability whenever completing a land management type Megaproject, may spend Stability to double the effort of megaprojects and in defensive wars, certain projects may receive additional actions at the midturn at the cost of Centralization
Cons: Additional strife caused by deliberate environmental disruption unless it is for the long term betterment of the land, or loss of territory to others
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Academia Nut said:
Joyous Symphony
All have their part to play in this world, be it their interaction with each other, their neighbours, or with the spirits. When all the parts of a group are moving in peaceful accord, the result is greater than the sum of the parts, and transcendental to behold.
Pros: Bonus to collective action, spiritually and ecologically harmonious actions, and to concerted efforts. Gain +1 Stability every time a defensive war non-destructively ends.
Cons: Disharmony is to be corrected, require casus belli to declare war
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Last edited:
Korporati said:
What are you even saying-_-


Do you even pay attention to an's post?
Our agenda is to unite the territories that were part of old ymar, which means the territories of Gylruv, which we plan to culturally unite with us and black sheep territory.
Why would we even want a non hostile relationship?
Well it's possible we use diplomacy to regain them, but it's also unlikely
And how does Khemetri uniting the small states has to with ymar??
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We would want non-hostile relationship with Sheep because annexing Gylruv automatically brings with it attention of their enemies - Poland, for example, and other European powers.
Having hostile Poland on one side, hostile Vortuga and Franco-Iberia on the other is bad enough; adding hostile Mughals on the third side would be pretty atrocious geopolitical situation.

Like, what a lot of you hyped up on "blob big" are not getting is that, outside of EU4 or Total War, blobbing too big to be brought down on your own is almost impossible.

There were, say, Hapsburgs; cool, powerful, lords of Austria and shit. Then they got PU over Spain, which meant, well, modern Spain, Netherlands and parts of Italy.
By all accounts they were thus too powerful for any one or maybe even two of their rivals to take. You know what happened?
30 years war, where half the Europe dogpiled the Hapsburgs under premise of religious war. It was more of a religious one at the start, but by the end it was "everyone and their mother stabs Hapsburgs".

Another example of "if you get too big, the rest of the world will dogpile you into fucking off unless you are diplomancing everyone" is Russia and Crimean War.
Or Germany and WW1.

The only remotely plausible examples of "empire too big to be brought down all on its own" in modern era was, I guess, USA, and even this one is debatable as USA's power relies heavily on international friends, both inferior in power (Monroe doctrine, for example) and peers (mostly Europe). Plus, in modern age the economies of the world are so interconnected that bringing down USA would cripple economy of anyone who did it anyway, so it's plainly not profitable enough to bother.
Well, and MAD is a thing nowadays.

edit: In colonial era there was also Great Britain, yes...who famously diplomanced approximately half of Europe, joining Russia to attack France, then joining France to attack Russia, then joining France and Russia to attack Germany...you get the point: they sat on the other side of channel behind their wooden wall and did their best to bring down any too powerful continental entity. edit 2: if they focused less on this asshomancy and more on blobbing...the hypothetical alliance of Europe-fucks-up-Britain would, say, give African possessions to France and Germany, Middle East to Russia, the Albion itself could stay on its own, crippled by war and some sanctions or whatever.


Point is, no, Khemetri have nothing to do with uniting Ymar, that is the whole point: we need peer allies. We cannot take on the world alone. Nobody can, not in this age.
And that's why IMO good relationship with Black Sheep is valuable: because bad one means that they are more likely to dogpile us in case of us being attacked, and I am not fond of being partitioned between hypothetical coalition of not!Hungary, not!Poland, not!Mughals, not!Spain and not!Portugal.
 
Last edited:
ctulhuslp said:
We would want non-hostile relationship with Sheep because annexing Gylruv automatically brings with it attention of their enemies - Poland, for example, and other European powers.
Having hostile Poland on one side, hostile Vortuga and Franco-Iberia on the other is bad enough; adding hostile Mughals on the third side would be pretty atrocious geopolitical situation.

Like, what a lot of you hyped up on "blob big" are not getting is that, outside of EU4 or Total War, blobbing too big to be brought down on your own is almost impossible.

There were, say, Hapsburgs; cool, powerful, lords of Austria and shit. Then they got PU over Spain, which meant, well, modern Spain, Netherlands and parts of Italy.
By all accounts they were thus too powerful for any one or maybe even two of their rivals to take. You know what happened?
30 years war, where half the Europe dogpiled the Hapsburgs under premise of religious war. It was more of a religious one at the start, but by the end it was "everyone and their mother stabs Hapsburgs".

Another example of "if you get too big, the rest of the world will dogpile you into fucking off unless you are diplomancing everyone" is Russia and Crimean War.
Or Germany and WW1.

The only remotely plausible examples of "empire too big to be brought down all on its own" in modern era was, I guess, USA, and even this one is debatable as USA's power relies heavily on international friends, both inferior in power (Monroe doctrine, for example) and peers (mostly Europe). Plus, in modern age the economies of the world are so interconnected that bringing down USA would cripple economy of anyone who did it anyway, so it's plainly not profitable enough to bother.
Well, and MAD is a thing nowadays.

edit: In colonial era there was also Great Britain, yes...who famously diplomanced approximately half of Europe, joining Russia to attack France, then joining France to attack Russia, then joining France and Russia to attack Germany...you get the point: they sat on the other side of channel behind their wooden wall and did their best to bring down any too powerful continental entity. edit 2: if they focused less on this asshomancy and more on blobbing...the hypothetical alliance of Europe-fucks-up-Britain would, say, give African possessions to France and Germany, Middle East to Russia, the Albion itself could stay on its own, crippled by war and some sanctions or whatever.


Point is, no, Khemetri have nothing to do with uniting Ymar, that is the whole point: we need peer allies. We cannot take on the world alone. Nobody can, not in this age.
And that's why IMO good relationship with Black Sheep is valuable: because bad one means that they are more likely to dogpile us in case of us being attacked, and I am not fond of being partitioned between hypothetical coalition of not!Hungary, not!Poland, not!Mughals, not!Spain and not!Portugal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agree.
Hopefully our secondary focus on Scandinavia and the Maghul leads to at least cordial interactions, this avoiding two potential avenues of war.
 
ctulhuslp said:
We would want non-hostile relationship with Sheep because annexing Gylruv automatically brings with it attention of their enemies - Poland, for example, and other European powers.
Having hostile Poland on one side, hostile Vortuga and Franco-Iberia on the other is bad enough; adding hostile Mughals on the third side would be pretty atrocious geopolitical situation.

Like, what a lot of you hyped up on "blob big" are not getting is that, outside of EU4 or Total War, blobbing too big to be brought down on your own is almost impossible.

There were, say, Hapsburgs; cool, powerful, lords of Austria and shit. Then they got PU over Spain, which meant, well, modern Spain, Netherlands and parts of Italy.
By all accounts they were thus too powerful for any one or maybe even two of their rivals to take. You know what happened?
30 years war, where half the Europe dogpiled the Hapsburgs under premise of religious war. It was more of a religious one at the start, but by the end it was "everyone and their mother stabs Hapsburgs".

Another example of "if you get too big, the rest of the world will dogpile you into fucking off unless you are diplomancing everyone" is Russia and Crimean War.
Or Germany and WW1.

The only remotely plausible examples of "empire too big to be brought down all on its own" in modern era was, I guess, USA, and even this one is debatable as USA's power relies heavily on international friends, both inferior in power (Monroe doctrine, for example) and peers (mostly Europe). Plus, in modern age the economies of the world are so interconnected that bringing down USA would cripple economy of anyone who did it anyway, so it's plainly not profitable enough to bother.
Well, and MAD is a thing nowadays.

edit: In colonial era there was also Great Britain, yes...who famously diplomanced approximately half of Europe, joining Russia to attack France, then joining France to attack Russia, then joining France and Russia to attack Germany...you get the point: they sat on the other side of channel behind their wooden wall and did their best to bring down any too powerful continental entity. edit 2: if they focused less on this asshomancy and more on blobbing...the hypothetical alliance of Europe-fucks-up-Britain would, say, give African possessions to France and Germany, Middle East to Russia, the Albion itself could stay on its own, crippled by war and some sanctions or whatever.


Point is, no, Khemetri have nothing to do with uniting Ymar, that is the whole point: we need peer allies. We cannot take on the world alone. Nobody can, not in this age.
And that's why IMO good relationship with Black Sheep is valuable: because bad one means that they are more likely to dogpile us in case of us being attacked, and I am not fond of being partitioned between hypothetical coalition of not!Hungary, not!Poland, not!Mughals, not!Spain and not!Portugal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Whats with the russia and the middle east??
Taking the middle east would be a hillarious logistical nightmare for them, not to mention the ottomans were the one holding it. not the british.

Plus whats the connection with german and ww1? You know that isnt germany vs everyone right. ITS CALLED THE CENTRAL POWERS VS ETENTE not GERMANY VS ETENTE.
And the british didnt ally themselves with france against germany, it was germany who seek to surpass british naval dominance in the seas, not to mention invading belgium.
are you disregarding the ottoman empire and the austro-hungarians??

*Sighs.

So what you meant was that you wish to avoid a coalition against us and seek allies right?
Fair enough with the khemetri part, i just dont think a non hostile relation is possible with black sheep if we are pursuing greater ymar. We are taking their land after all and i dont think they will be too happy with it.


Then again, the world has more potential allies than black sheep. We can just seek other states, like you said khemetri. We also have a secondary focus on the not!scandinavians.
Edit: Plus you do notice right the lack of major war in the world since the widespread use of nuclear weapons? That also make your US "An Empire cannot be brought down all on its own" stupid. By that logic, all major nuclear nations like pakistan is an "Empire that cannot be brought down all on its own".
 
Last edited:
ctulhuslp said:
The only remotely plausible examples of "empire too big to be brought down all on its own" in modern era was, I guess, USA, and even this one is debatable as USA's power relies heavily on international friends, both inferior in power (Monroe doctrine, for example) and peers (mostly Europe). Plus, in modern age the economies of the world are so interconnected that bringing down USA would cripple economy of anyone who did it anyway, so it's plainly not profitable enough to bother.
Well, and MAD is a thing nowadays.

edit: In colonial era there was also Great Britain, yes...who famously diplomanced approximately half of Europe, joining Russia to attack France, then joining France to attack Russia, then joining France and Russia to attack Germany...you get the point: they sat on the other side of channel behind their wooden wall and did their best to bring down any too powerful continental entity. edit 2: if they focused less on this asshomancy and more on blobbing...the hypothetical alliance of Europe-fucks-up-Britain would, say, give African possessions to France and Germany, Middle East to Russia, the Albion itself could stay on its own, crippled by war and some sanctions or whatever.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
USA and British Isles were able to leverage the sea as a natural barrier against invasion which also enabled trade. Though it too can be brought down, it takes enough doing that most enemies are fine with just cutting off their efforts away from home.
 
NotHungary, the Styrmyr, are the descendants of the Storm Ymaryn.

After the Black Sheep and Gylruv, can we not pursue diplo with these prodigal kids of ours?
 
Hey @Academia Nut, this is entirely off the current focus of the thread, but in terms of heraldic animals, did the Crow become a major visual identification in terms of relation to power/religious symbol through Ymaryn/Ymaryn-descendant cultures, considering the influence of Ymaryn's religious beliefs/focuses. I understand that, at the time, the OTL Russian Empire would have been identifying with a Black Eagle as the heraldic symbol on their imperial flag, but would that have shifted into a Crow per their descendant from Ymaryn stock?

In much the same way that the Black Eagle was apparently the religious icon of the Highland Kingdom (and the question of how that played a role in religious developments and iconography as well), is their any other major change to heraldry and symbolism within this universe?

Also, second question, but does this seem like a reasonable attempt at a modern Ymaryn flag?

I was originally going to go for blue instead of the gold, but then I considered the Imperial Russian flag and decided to see if it fit better. Furthermore, I think it might be fairly obvious that I took a inspiration from the current Iranian flag through the inclusion of the central symbol (which is suppose to be a three-eyed crow but definition has never been a part of msPaint, atop a pair of crossed blades and situated within a golden star) and the arabic translation to crow (although I might edit that into a different saying all together, considering this is more proof-of-concept than anything else).

Additionally, what are the different kind of national symbols between the different Imperial Powers/major empires that currently exist. While I know the idea of a modern-concept of nationhood or identification might radically vary from this OTL or even the difference in time period, is their any rough ideas you had for those different nations? Finally, on the question of Gylruv itself, is it actually even in a position to expand as OTL Russia did, considering the potential expansion and growth of East-Asian nations that weren't nearly as savaged by the Genghis Khan equivalent this time around, would their actually be some level of divide or prevention to the expansion across the northern regions of the planet?
 
Last edited:
SneakyWalrus said:
-snipped flag-
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As an amateur vexillologist, I have a couple comments on this. Firstly even account for the lack of resolution, the crow and crossed sabers would almost certainly be too small to be recognizable. Secondaly, given how multicultural Ymar has always been, and in particular how it will be now that we're assembling it from a bunch of semi-divergent pieces, having a bit of writing on the flag is going make it feel foreign to people from the edges of the empire. I think maybe something like this...
...would work better.
 
Last edited:
SneakyWalrus said:
Hey @Academia Nut and the arabic translation to crow (although I might edit that into a different saying all together, considering this is more proof-of-concept than anything else).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Slightly curious, why Arabic? Isn't the Ymaryn language based on welsh or am I mis-remembering? They are of Proto-Indo-European descent, and so their language should not resemble Arabic(which is an entirely different language family).

Does anyone recall what Academic Nut said about the language? I think some of it was on discord.

I found this:
Academia Nut said:
Aabcehmu said: ↑
@Academia Nut Purely out of curiosity, if and when we develop the navigational capability to navigate out into the mediterranean and the around Europe, would the Ymaryn be able to detect their relationship with the proto-Lusitani, proto-Gauls, and proto-Celts? Assuming such people even still existed ITTL, and haven't been replaced by some other branch of PIE (or, maybe be pre-PIE people, such as the ancestors of the Basque).

While their language contains Welsh elements, the PIE groups are related to the steppe nomads, who spent the past two thousand years or so spreading west where you have no idea what is going on. You do create a weird back pressure by occasionally drawing tribes east rather than them continually moving west, and also drawing more eastern tribes more quickly to the west. The currently developing central Indo-European languages are probably picking up extra elements of Turkic and Mongolic languages as well as mixing unknown extinct languages like peers of proto-Basque.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

EDIT:
And this site for elvish script, which is more likely than Arabic:
Tecendil
 
Last edited:
Chrestomanci said:
Slightly curious, why Arabic? Isn't the Ymaryn language based on welsh or am I mis-remembering?

Does anyone recall what Academic Nut said about the language?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes, but Welsh is written with the same grammatical design as English, i.e; with a language based of Romantic Latin.

Ymaryn written language wouldn't be based off Latin, so I went with the basic concept that it'd be similar to written Arabic rather than English, despite the phonetic similarities to Welsh.
 
SneakyWalrus said:
Well I mean, I would if I could, but I don't have anything better than paint man.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well...its not like it hadn't been done already:
Exmorri said:
Holy Roman Emperor Charles, Charles V of Habsburg and Charles I of Spain, Frankly It's A Miracle We Didn't Have Namespace Collisions Earlier, And King And Duke Of Various Other Places Too: "Wait. You can put multiple territories on your coat of arms?"
Fashion Advisor: "I don't like where this is going..."
Charles: "Put the Spanish one on there, and, hmm, since split shields are usually quarters, we can't settle for just three, right?. How about the Low Countries as a fourth?"
Fashion Advisor: "Charles. What are you doing. Charles."
Charles: "Oh, that's right, the Low Countries don't have a common flag. Well, let's recursively divide that part of the shield so we can include all their separate flags."
Fashion Advisor: "Stahp. Pls stahp."
Charles: "And to balance it out on the other side, we can split the Spanish bit into Castile and Aragon and Leon and Navarre."
Fashion Advisor: "This is going to be such a mess."
Charles: "Austria needs to get its representation bigger than the Spanish kingdoms, naturally. And one of my ancestors led a Crusade, so throw on Jerusalem..."
Fashion Advisor: "What have I done to deserve this?"
Charles: "Not gone on a Crusade, I suppose. Does Sicily count as separate from Spain? Eh, just put them all on there. Oh! And Hungary too, mustn't forget Hungary."
Fashion Advisor: "Your Majesty, this is a prime number of coats of arms, even with the double-sized Austria."
Charles: "Well then duplicate some of them until they fit. Squish one in at the bottom if you have to."
Fashion Advisor: "Your Majesty, between the multiple incorporations and the duplications, this coat of arms is going to have twelve lions!"
Charles: "That's good, right? More lions than anyone else, and twelve is a nice round number."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

 
Last edited:
veekie said:
On the plus side, we have a strong incentive to figure the process out! Most people aren't crazy enough to fertilize their goddamned forests except the Ymar descendants...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

On the other hand we're now closely entwined with territories whose soil is just naturally black. They don't have to use any infrastructure for their irrigation either. Not sure what it means in terms of black soil development, but I do know that a lot of our people are probably very salty about it.

Korporati said:
Whats with the russia and the middle east??
Taking the middle east would be a hillarious logistical nightmare for them, not to mention the ottomans were the one holding it. not the british.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Russia had a lot of interest in absorbing territories on its southern border. The reasons are complicated, but basically come down to wanting to remove threats and gain power. The British had a problem with it, partially because that would put the Russians uncomfortably close to India. So they engaged in a massive, decades-long political (and sometimes military) campaign to suppress Russia.

See what I mean about India and the surrounding region being nothing but trouble?
 
SeptimusMagisto said:
On the other hand we're now closely entwined with territories whose soil is just naturally black. They don't have to use any infrastructure for their irrigation either. Not sure what it means in terms of black soil development, but I do know that a lot of our people are probably very salty about it.



Russia had a lot of interest in absorbing territories on its southern border. The reasons are complicated, but basically come down to wanting to remove threats and gain power. The British had a problem with it, partially because that would put the Russians uncomfortably close to India. So they engaged in a massive, decades-long political (and sometimes military) campaign to suppress Russia.

See what I mean about India and the surrounding region being nothing but trouble?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do you even read what I written?

The stuff you mentioned which was called the great game was in fucking Afghanistan and Central Asia not the Middle East. I do not know if you missread or lack understanding of geography.

My post was about the impossibility of Russia holding out Middle East, not Afghanistan, which was in their border.

Edit: Yes, Russia does posses a lot of southern expansion ambitions, from Afghanistan to the silly securing warm water ports in Persia. But those ambitions are never in the fucking Middle East.
 
Last edited:
If we can control the horn of africa between us and not-egypt we can rule trade going west.

We DO need ti do a joint mega project between us and Kemtrri and dig the canal. There is SO MUCH MONEY in a water route from the Mediterranean to the indian ocean.

We are, as far as I can tell, the only group to dig a major canal and we did it in the stone age.
 
Last edited:
Fouredged Sword said:
If we can control the horn of africa between us and not-egypt we can rule trade going west.

We DO need ti do a joint mega project between us and Kemtrri and dig the canal. There is SO MUCH MONEY in a water route from the Mediterranean to the indian ocean.

We are, as far as I can tell, the only group to dig a major canal and we did it in the stone agem
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we secure the Sheep border we could probably cut a canal now that we have explosives.
Expensively, but it'd run through our core.
 
And when we do dig the canal, we can build a huge honking navel defense fort full of canon batteries of each end and say "Only ships flying flags we like can cross, and only ours can do so for free".

We could then basically pick winners and losers in the eastern trade game. Supporting Khemtri becomes a matter of simply subsidising their crossing fees and selling them cheep weapons.

Take a page from their book. They did that to our enemies once and it worked wonderfully for them.
 
Aabcehmu said:
something like this...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I like it. The use of purple shows what rich arrogant ***holes we are :V
SneakyWalrus said:
Yes, but Welsh is written with the same grammatical design as English, i.e; with a language based of Romantic Latin.

Ymaryn written language wouldn't be based off Latin, so I went with the basic concept that it'd be similar to written Arabic rather than English, despite the phonetic similarities to Welsh.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Problem with that. While most of the info on the front page is falling away in relevance, I point you to this,
Academia Nut said:
Writing (Mixed Logo-/Phonographic)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So while we may speak Welsh, we write in Japanese, not Arabic.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top