Game Discussion

I consider people who still see the need of civil war in the 21st century barbarians.

Is that a dig at the Syrians, Ciloron?

Nooooooooooooooo, I'd never do that.

@NobleWoman: The tribes that inhabited the area before being pushed south, now known as Dravidians (and were finally civilized by 400 AD), as well as many other minor uncivilized tribes that continued to live in forests (and are still living there) even after Aryans had settled almost all of India.

These tribes were considered 'barbarians' by the Sanskrit speaking Indians that spread throughout, Mauryan Empire reduced them to tributary states and later annexed them.

I was talking about people's morality, empathy, understanding, and general kindness as determining "civilization." Now I know that in history books/classes "civilization" is defined as a people who can read, write, build impressive structures, have art, and have advanced tools etc. According to the later, Romans would be civilized. According to my definition, Romans were just very strong and impressive barbarians. They had slavery and games were people killed people. They also had a tendency to war a lot and exterminate certain cities that opposed them. I'm not feeling the love from the Romans lol.

I agree with Ciloron, that people who fight civil wars (or any war against other people for that matter) are barbarians. Personally, I consider most Islamic people in the Middle East to be barbarians since Saudi Arabia and Iran have atrocious human rights records as they beat down homosexuals and women. And North Korea is definitely ruled by barbarians. So we as a global society still have work to do to improve humanity, but I have hope and am confident that we will succeed. Cheers! WC

Originally Posted by Rhinelander

Hello Warrior Cat,

I'm coming to tell you of an idea I had for a pretty long time now (since Maximus came with his Moutains shown on the map).
As some people might know, I love geography and if you want I would like to paint some rivers into the EW map and if you like it we could take it over for the EWVI game If it effects in the game or just to feel more into the situation you may decide Maybe they could be used as waterways or something.

I already finished Europe (without River Danube, Volga and Dnjepr)

What would be the purpose of these rivers? The mountain ranges act as barriers to certain areas for conquest. Would the rivers be just for aesthetics? I'm fine with that. I don't see how waterways would work, unless you mean that from a region bordering the river you can attack a region far down the river with 1 move? That would be a cool strategic benefit. I think as I write it seems. What does everyone else think about Rhinelander's idea for rivers? This is your game after all, players of European Wars VI. Cheers! WC

I'd say the possibility of building some sort of transport that can travel 3 regions by river(downstream), 2(upstream), so if someone wishes to attack a target 7 regions from the river-neighbouring region, it would take 3 turns or something like that.

Max, I dont think Dravidians were barbarians who were "civilized" by Aryans. The Aryans, in my opinion, were not pretty civilized much themselves, in the same way WC spoke of Rome (I agree there). They were outrightly grossly patriarchal, were too-Brahmin dominated and mistreated women and so-called "lower castes". Much of the condition of women and Dalits in India today are thanks to these "culture" and "civilization". In contrast, many Dravidian societies were matrilineal, ((they still might be) and the status of women was much better.

Got to say, Simon is one hilarious character

Well, In the early periods (especially before 600 BC) neither Aryans nor Dravidians could be considered as 'civilized', fighting each other in small tribal wars like a supposed 'barbarian' tribe would qualify for. Before 800 BC, there was not much of the urbanization either.

By the way, I am going to blast Simon into oblivion. He brought it upon himself by taking my parts of Italy and severly weakened my frontier, 'in name of friendship'.

Personally, I think humans are barbarians. We love to kill for sport as well as any other reason we can think of. Doesn't matter, male of female. Matriarchy or Patriarchy, control and enslavement is the name of the game. Why do we all so much love this war game we're playing? Hm?

Actually, WC, Iran is pretty advanced when it comes to the status of women in society. Women are encouraged to negotiate for what they want in the marriage contract. Women hold political office. If you knew any Iranian women, you'd know they are no pushovers!!!! Arabia on the other hand... . Arabs just seem to have gone into the toilet since their heyday. They are responsible, IMO, for turning a progressive religion into a regressive one. Very sad, really. I know plenty of Arabs and plenty of Iranians. I'll take the Iranians anyday.

Lol, triple posts in a row. Please use 'edit' button to add to your posts, mate. Double or triple posting is forbidden on the forums unless by mistake.

I am making two separate posts. Of course this site double posted the one. I do not wish them to be together. If it is against the rules -- too bad. WC, or whoever, can fire me.

I understand that, mate. But it is not about 'firing' people, it is about keeping the forums neat. You have edit button to use, why clutter for no reason?

My dear General, "clutter" has nothing to do with anything. It is the freedom to express myself as I see fit. Separate subjects necessitate separate discussion threads. One human's clutter is another's neatness of thought.

N B Forrest, what the heck are you talking about? Iran sucks when it comes to women's rights. Just recently there was a presidential election (which doesn't mean anything as the totalitarian Islamic Supreme Leader runs everything there) where all the female candidates were rejected on "constitutional" grounds. Link to an article.

And please please use the edit button. Instead of separate posts, have separate paragraphs. It is a rule to avoid double or triple posting on this site and moderators enforce it. Please don't get kicked off this site due to your stubbornness. WC

Warrior Cat just pretty much said exactly what I wanted to say.

Except for female rights of course, I wasn't in that discussion anyway.

But you are supportive of females' rights, aren't you Maximus? Right? Of course you are because you wouldn't dare risk the wrath of Warrior Cat!

Originally Posted by N B Forrest

And, of course, since there is no rule to the contrary, province count should be the summation of the two party's individual counts. I, Spiridion Lusi, understand the world will howl in anguish and frustration at this unique coup. For coup it is. But it is only fitting that the two brilliant lights of the world should show the world what true civilization is.

Uhh... if you think that you and NobleWoman can control a single faction where your 31 regions combine with her 39 regions to make 70 regions, you are sadly mistaken. That is cheating and that kind of alliance is not allowed in this game. I have already warned you about that. If you push me, I'll write it in the OP of the main game thread that it is against the rules for players to combine their factions to increase their region count. Then there will be a written rule to the contrary. And Forrest: this is a police state run by yours truly. But as Simon would say, It is a benevolent dictatorship with tyrannical mercy.

It is not fair to the other players if you end the game early by reaching 100 regions this way.

Thank you for your understanding, WC

Sorry WC, I do not understand. There is no rule prohibiting such an arrangement. You are simply ticked you didn't think of it. Whereas I, N B Forrest, have.

But that is fine. The game means nothing to me. I will gift all of my regions to NobleWoman to speed her victory. And therefore end the game early anyway if you prohibit my innovation.

NobleWoman is in the lead and she will stay in the lead and win. With my help of course. Either way.

What I have proposed is not cheating. There is no rule saying we cannot combine territories. So therefore there is no rule to cheat against. Again, you have a mental construct of the game and I have a different construct. You can exert your control as moderator of the game -- but I still hold the cards.

So either let us combine our territories should she agree (she hasn't yet) or I gift them all to her.

Also, you can't write a prohibition in as that would be changing the rules. And you yourself said rule changes must be agreed upon. You see, there is no rule. If there is no rule, then my proposal is permissible.

Up to you mate.