Retech

Hah, looks like we need Archi again. *poke* :D

That sounds like a lot of fun. I won't be able to mod because I don't know anything about the series, but it would be fun to play. :) Rocco/Grim, interested?

Generally the reason I'm using an Earth map with slightly deviating alternate history is because it is much simpler for me. Instead of trying to devise complicated random events, I can take a real life event, mess around with it, and then use it + easier for resources.

It would've been somewhat the same as last time, when France could not participate in a long war before their lords began to complain. If equally seems to be the consensus, then I'll make it so that each nation has advantages and disadvantages, but the budgets will start approximately the same (it could vary a bit because of trading, but generally the same).

Basically Arab nations start with more eggs in the basket and are trying not to drop them. European nations start with less eggs in the basket, but their chickens can still lay eggs. Essentially Arab nations are a clumsier version of the HRE. They will probaly be exploited as ethnic groups try to break off and other nations eye hungrily on their outstretched territories. If you manage it well, then the Arab nations are going to stay strong, especially with their benefit as the primary trade route with the east. That's what I meant though. Regular reality with small modifications. And the maps of Earth are that good because they are designed to have nice, consise borders, and I can look at the resources of each nation on Wikipedia or something. We've also seen that most non-Earth maps aren't fit for Hegemony.

It'll probaly end up being Earth with alternate reality, for balancing purposes (and the maps for Earth are the best). Each country will start off with their own advantages and disadvantages, to try to upset the balance of power (some nations might have favorable Centers of Trade, but may lack resources). Generally some stuff will still stay the same. For example, France would have a strong agricultural economy but whiny lords, and HRE would have powerful lords that are difficult to control, and strong income. Also, to balance the fact that Eastern nations are probaly going to get whomped on first, they generally receive technology first. Technology also generally spreads to bordering countries (so balancing the fact that nations in Central Europe have little place to expand would be that they would generally receive tech from both east and west rather quickly). Since Arab countries are open, they start with a technological and economic lead, but they receive events regarding the decline of their empire. :thumbup: If anyone is curious about specific countries, then I can answer your questions (won't be specific, but a general idea)

I will try to be more informative with better planning, as that seemed to be the main problem. Looks like there is interest, so I will start figuring stuff out and making a better map. This time, Asia will be part of the map, though you can't take Asian countries. The Middle East is open though.

Also, I'm thinking about removing pesky infrastructure penalties and economic things. Instead, it'll be a combination of war weariness and a few other factors (clearly people don't like it when their land is being pillaged by an enemy army). It'll be pretty intuitive after you can actually see it and test it out. So it doesn't happen just because you conquer an enemy country, but at the same time, the enemy country could still revolt on occasion until you establish a firm grip on it. And the research system will primarily be attracting researchers to your country (they mainly start in the middle east). Technological advancements usually spread to the whole continent, but it's always an advantage to get the tech five or ten years before anyone else.

After this week or so (research paper + midterms week), I will be having a week with essentially no school. If there's enough interest, I'll be creating a rehashed Ye Olde Hegemony, with many new features. Few of them include: fixing the economic system to include actual trade, balanced naval system, centers of trade, and stuff that I haven't thought of yet. Oh, and NPCs won't be pushovers. So if you're interested and/or have any interesting ideas, please let me know. :)

I don't think I'll be playing this time around. Maybe because I'm highly skeptical about coalitions or maybe it's because we basically decided against a similar game with this concept a few months ago. Will be looking forward to watching though. :thumbup: I don't think that one can assume that everyone is playing a game if it pops up and seems somewhat interesting.

/me is essentially a requirement. Helps him keep track of things and not get stressed out looking for stuff, reading everything. :thumbup:

Actually, in half the states in the United States, you can basically freely shoot people for trespassing on your property. And in the other half, that would be murder in self defence, which is not a crime.

We just have to accept the fact that any argument will essentially get to nowhere, and that the other side will probaly ignore your analysis if it is contradictory to their own. Yet somehow we still manage to get along. If we were US senators on the same side, we could probaly fillibuster a bill easily. Talking endlessly and reading off Grandma's cooking recipes to delay passage of a bill. :)

I am not.

That was a clear cut case of profit, which never materialized. Now we're discussing economic theory that is probaly too complex for even people with degrees, so it is all relative. You have forgotten that I can argue almost endless, recycling the same points over and over again. < War by Attrition

Sigh... I said that I believed that the first two would not be lost, and the third would be gained. I am not arguing that the deal that you suggested would be a bad one, but I am arguing that it is not the deal that is going to take place. I don't think that either of us have knowledge of the economy at this moment, so please direct your argument on ethics or something else, because there's no way that you could prove me wrong using economic theory. This is basically the reason that I don't do anything regarding the economy (except for tech increases of course) in your Hegemony's, and why hypothetically you probaly would not do anything regarding the economy in my hypothetical Hegemony.

Agriculture = US is net exporter of agricultural goods. No problems there Prisoners would only take out China and Korea from the equation, because currently Japan is producing higher quality goods that would not be replaced by the prison factories. Chocolate and coffee are a small loss at most. Infact, they might actually decline in price, because now the people are poorer and the cost of living drops. (for the third world countries) Mind explaining how all of this keeps leading to the economy collapsing? --- I'm sure some poor country would take them in for a thousand bucks a person.

I think you misunderstood. You're still trading with the majority of the world, except the third world countries that can no longer afford your products because you are no longer in need of theirs. We would only need to purchase resources. The financial system worked fine without third world countries before. From what I understand Mather was doing, we are creating societies that were built up over time. They're not perfect, but just assuming that they evolved that way. ---- Or you can exile the prisoners like I suggested earlier, and put tagging systems. They return to your countries, and it whacks em.

I am aware, but America is already at a negative balance of trade with most of the world. Quite simply, this would fix that. I was under the impression that we were operating under the pretense of a perfect society, meaning there would be no anti-government revolts. Result: Dead prisoners. Similarly, we've been operating under the delusion that it would be easy or even possible to transfer from our current society to this new perfect society, especially with much of the wealth held by corporations. I'm sure they could've figured something out in Soviet Russia.

The balance of trade is already destroyed. That is why countries like China have lined their pockets already. That is also untrue in a sense. Prison riot = Prisoners not working = No food for the prisoners to eat In the end, we wouldn't lose GDP compared to the death penalty (loss of GDP due to loss of the prison workforce though) because the prisoners have not been contributing in the first place. It would save on welfare costs, social security, education, and prison costs. Essentially an overall wealthier and more secure society. It is true the economy would shrink, but not compared to the number of people. Individuals would not feel much of a difference.

Untrue. The kind of hard labor is no longer practiced (or very sparsely practiced) in the Western world, because wages have increased. It would take jobs from third world countries. :thumbup: Basically the economic advantages are great for hiring these prison workers. The labor is cheap, the transportation costs are negligible (within regions, rather than across the world), and it would fix the present prison cost crisis. ---

Yeah, I like the exile idea better. And A and B were supposed to be a choice thing. Actually, this reminds me of an idea that I had from before. Prison factories! Prisoners pay for their imprisonment through hard labor.

People don't want to be imprisoned but we do that anyways. Also, I was not suggesting that we would use the US legal system. Get rid of appeals and just imprison them. If any new information is found that could acquit, a panel of three judges can look to see if there is enough new evidence to merit a new case. An alternative would be the following: A) Family + Friends must pay for the imprisonment of the life-sentenced inmate or B) Execution following ten years imprisonment (so that if they discover any information that acquits the person, then they can let em go) ---- Another option would be exile, which the Russians did particularly well. If one does not deserve to live in society, then make sure that they get no benefits from the society or harms the society. Exile removes them from society and prevents them from reaping its benefits. It would not cost society more than the cost for a small backpack of rations and tools (like a hundred bucks maybe), and if they are found to be innocent at a later date, they can come back to the society if they choose. We shall put the prisoners on ELBA!

As you said, a person that is in prison for life is essentially as dangerous as a dead person. However, imprisonment costs a huge amount of money.

In America, if a kid takes a picture of themselves and distributes, it's usually classified as Child Pornography (same as like exploiting five year olds or something). And Abortion is pretty much illegal late in the pregnancy, except for extreme cases.