by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

Sorry! Search is currently disabled. Returning soon.

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,3761,3771,3781,3791,3801,3811,382. . .27,89827,899»

Hey guys I want to EU4 with one of you soon. I was thinking about playing Florence. I have a strategery on forming Italy.

Kalmara wrote:Hey guys I want to EU4 with one of you soon. I was thinking about playing Florence. I have a strategery on forming Italy.

Then someone plays as France and dominates everyone else. :P

Rubyna and Kalmara

Heh France will be my biaatch in this game.

Let me know via telegram what your steam name is and what time zone you are in. Above all, tell me what time you would like to play at what day.

Great British Federation wrote:Well I was talking of this:- http://www.leftleave.org/ and #Lexit was their slogan and Twitter hashtag...

How does London leave the UK? Does it stay in England or does it become a city state? London, as we all know, is the capital of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. How does an administrative capital simply leave its nation? And what kind of message does this send to Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland?

Kalmara

Rubyna wrote:How does London leave the UK? Does it stay in England or does it become a city state? London, as we all know, is the capital of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. How does an administrative capital simply leave its nation? And what kind of message does this send to Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland?

I agree. It makes no scene whatsoever for three reasons:

1) City States throughout History never have been successful and have only caused problems in Europe and Asia
2) Even if it was somehow logical, City States are past our time. The only one I can think of is Singapore. But they are English- speaking and have close ties with England compared to Malaysia. So I guess Hong Kong and Macau are possible candidates. But this is Europe.
3) Like Rubyna posited, a seat of government cant leave an entity that it is governing. What would the country it is leaving do? Relocate. Especially for the UK, London has always been the capital of England.

One thing to consider too is how would this city state manage itself. Would they have a Sate Army. Who would be their allies, who would they trade with. How and what policies will be instated. What services will they provide to the people. It is too much of a burden. Just think why Scotland did not seceded from the Commonwealth. Especially for a presumptive city state, how would they be looked at to the international community? I don't think they would just be open to an idea to a Free City of London.

Rubyna

Rubyna wrote:How does London leave the UK? Does it stay in England or does it become a city state? London, as we all know, is the capital of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. How does an administrative capital simply leave its nation? And what kind of message does this send to Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland?

'A primate city is the largest city in its country or region, disproportionately larger than any others in the urban hierarchy.'

Just read about this on Wikipedia. I was always wondering how to define cities like London, Mexico City and a lot of Central European capital cities. Personally, I think it's bad to have one city being disproportionately larger than the others. Especially in larger countries. It would be better to have your eggs in more than one basket, like USA, China, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany or India.

Rubyna, Woschia, Thracia and Crimea, Great British Federation, and 3 othersKalmara, The Nether Regions, and Terosa

The Seven Provinces wrote:'A primate city is the largest city in its country or region, disproportionately larger than any others in the urban hierarchy.'
Just read about this on Wikipedia. I was always wondering how to define cities like London, Mexico City and a lot of Central European capital cities. Personally, I think it's bad to have one city being disproportionately larger than the others. Especially in larger countries. It would be better to have your eggs in more than one basket, like USA, China, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany or India.

I like your idea. But why do cities get bigger than others? Then go from there. It is all about what is easier and more profitable. Picture this. If I were to settle a city tomorrow on a river with lots of water near a bay where everyone goes to, or a empty plain where little to no people go where should I settle to get the best results? The first would be a better choice. But don't lose me yet. We cannot control were people live (unless you are Stalin) to evenly distribute population. So were and why do people move to other cities?

So when I was a child, my family moved around alot. The first thing I recall they look for is where is work. So before I go into detail, how does cities or towns develop? Most of them start out as a agrarian community to provide food to the bigger towns and cities. So this is when surplus comes in. Unnecessary production that can be invested in something more. This creates an economy when people begin to interact with goods. The whole point of civilization and all of humanity all along was stuff. So when cities grow, the more good are demanded like steel, coal, dyes, food, wood ect. So setting up trade in a strategic location makes it cheaper and faster to get goods. And when people see a city like that, they are attracted to it. Weather also tends to help too. Feudalism was partly started by the Romans because of this cycle. Peasants were attracted to the urban lifestyle, you get stuff cheap and easy. Especially in a vast empire like Rome, this was especially true.

Peasants moved into large cities like Londonium, Rome, Lombardia and they needed people to farm. They were losing so much farmers they were losing money like it was bleeding out of them. They needed some sort of incentive or someone to force them to work the land. Feudalism was founded on this issue. So in order for an economy to function, we need big cities and small towns. Because we need to balance goods and services and food in order to do so. We could always turn back to tribalism were there is a traditional economy, but that is not a popular idea. For this era and our advancement in technology, there is no way.

In all, I like your idea fundamentally, but there is no way that is going to happen.

http://m.9gag.com/gag/awVKWNx?ref=fbp

So Americans, tell me, is this true?

Let us just say they took some liberties on some details. And no, Lincoln's SOT was not name Kennedy. I am not going to look up all the details I do not know. Because it was fun to read either way.... lol

Woschia

Foucaults garden

Woschia wrote:http://m.9gag.com/gag/awVKWNx?ref=fbp
So Americans, tell me, is this true?

I like this stuff

Woschia, Kalmara, and New bilaxi

Woschia wrote:http://m.9gag.com/gag/awVKWNx?ref=fbp
So Americans, tell me, is this true?

There are some mistakes but that's really cool anyway.

Woschia and Kalmara

Kalmara wrote:In all, I like your idea fundamentally, but there is no way that is going to happen.

It's not a Stalinist plan of mine hahaha

It's more an observation that the world's most stable economies tend to have several developed urban centres without one being disproportionately more important than the rest.

Looking at Germany, Frankfurt is the financial centre, Berlin the political, Munich the industrial and Hamburg the trade hub. This of course has largely got to do with the fact that Germany until not very long was split between dozens of rulers and only united in the late 19th century. That's why there is no one big centre for everything in Germany.

Looking at the US, New York is the business hub, Los Angeles the entertainment hub, Washington D.C. the political hub, Miami and Las Vegas the touristic hubs, Detroit the manufacturing hub, San Fransisco and Boston the technological and scientific hubs.

On Civ 5 I'm always trying to have many cities and specialize each city: one for production, one for science, one for gold, one for culture, etc. Sometimes it is inevitable that the capital will turn out to be the most important one, but then I redistribute resources so the other cities grow stronger and I end up with a civilization much less vulnerable.

Now, speaking of Stalinist plans, this might actually be applicablein the real world. Perhaps by developing infrastructure between cities or subsidization of industry and business in cities other than the capital.

The Seven Provinces wrote:

On Civ 5 I'm always trying to have many cities and specialize each city: one for production, one for science, one for gold, one for culture, etc. Sometimes it is inevitable that the capital will turn out to be the most important one, but then I redistribute resources so the other cities grow stronger and I end up with a civilization much less vulnerable.

The best way to learn how politics work. Trough games.

Thracia and Crimea wrote:What's wrong with PKK? Gee, I don't know, maybe the death of countless civilians including both Kurds and Turks.
They're not even fighting for independence right now btw. They gave up on that long ago. Now they're just trying to get autonomy. Which won't work because the Turkish army is rightfully crushing them at the moment.
And if any people could claim the Eastern part of Turkey, it would definetely not be the Kurds. It would be Armenians and Assyrians. Kurds moved and started populating the area after 1915. They have no real connection with the area other than colonising it.

They are not fighting for a completely seperate state, but they want independance from turkey, and they don't want the east they want a small sliver of the south where the majority of the population are kurds.
Citizens die in every battle / fight it sucks but its not like they are intentionally targeted.
I don't think the kurds ever "colonized" anything, they have been in the northern gulf and south east turkey/armenia for hundreds of years.
Assyrians haven't existed for thousand(s) of years by the way.

Hello, just visiting and What do I see? Polls, a new WA delegate and lengthy discussions on the forum! Things sure have changed since I left.

Kalmara wrote:I agree. It makes no scene whatsoever for three reasons:
1) City States throughout History never have been successful and have only caused problems in Europe and Asia
2) Even if it was somehow logical, City States are past our time. The only one I can think of is Singapore. But they are English- speaking and have close ties with England compared to Malaysia. So I guess Hong Kong and Macau are possible candidates. But this is Europe.
3) Like Rubyna posited, a seat of government cant leave an entity that it is governing. What would the country it is leaving do? Relocate. Especially for the UK, London has always been the capital of England.

City states in Europe (including microstates) include:
Andorra
Luxembourg
Vatican
Malta

Successful ancient city states include:
Athens
Sparta
Rome (in the beginning)

City states are very successful and don't cause many problems, in fact, Athens and Sparta alone fought the Persian empire, and won, just be careful next time with that statement, especially when history buffs are around

Rurikidovich wrote:They are not fighting for a completely seperate state, but they want independance from turkey, and they don't want the east they want a small sliver of the south where the majority of the population are kurds.
Citizens die in every battle / fight it sucks but its not like they are intentionally targeted.
I don't think the kurds ever "colonized" anything, they have been in the northern gulf and south east turkey/armenia for hundreds of years.
Assyrians haven't existed for thousand(s) of years by the way.

Assyrians still exist, very few of them, but they do, I know one personally, however they are definitely an endangered culture / people, probably one of the real examples of successful genocide

Woschia, Thracia and Crimea, and Rurikidovich

Scitayarland wrote:City states in Europe (including microstates) include:
Andorra
Luxembourg
Vatican
Malta
Successful ancient city states include:
Athens
Sparta
Rome (in the beginning)
City states are very successful and don't cause many problems, in fact, Athens and Sparta alone fought the Persian empire, and won, just be careful next time with that statement, especially when history buffs are around

Technically speaking, Andorra, Luxembourg, and Malta are not city states because they have more than one settlement. They are sovereignties, although Andorra is under the protection of France and Spain.

Woschia

Rubyna wrote:Technically speaking, Andorra, Luxembourg, and Malta are not city states because they have more than one settlement. They are sovereignties, although Andorra is under the protection of France and Spain.

Ok but I clearly said I would include microstates, a city state is not just the city, but the surrounding area as well, those three are small enough to be considered city states, especially due to the fact that they only have one actual city, doesn't matter how many towns or villages are involved

Woschia

Out of topic, but at what point will I get a custom nation prefix? I see a lot of them I don't remember from the default list.

Poulaka wrote:Out of topic, but at what point will I get a custom nation prefix? I see a lot of them I don't remember from the default list.

When your population reaches 500 million.

Because I think of Ronaldo as a Peacock
(Pun intended)
Long Live Poland!

Tournament records:
Messi in seven tournaments: Four finals, three quarterfinals
Ronaldo in six tournaments: One final, two semifinals, one quarterfinal, one last-16, one group-stage exit

Mh

Rurikidovich wrote:They are not fighting for a completely seperate state, but they want independance from turkey, and they don't want the east they want a small sliver of the south where the majority of the population are kurds.
Citizens die in every battle / fight it sucks but its not like they are intentionally targeted.
I don't think the kurds ever "colonized" anything, they have been in the northern gulf and south east turkey/armenia for hundreds of years.
Assyrians haven't existed for thousand(s) of years by the way.

Independence means a completely seperate state. You're not making sense there.

They might be attacking only police and the military right now but that was MUCH different merely 10 years ago. They intentionally targeted teachers and doctors sent to the East to uplift the area. They intentionally targeted policemen's pregnant wives. They intentionally wiped out whole villages because the Kurds in the villages wouldn't support them. They still intentionally stop cars around some areas in the East and if the people in them look Turkish, they burn down their cars. They still intentionally throw rocks or throw bombs into stores. 3 of that happened this year in Istanbul. And this has been going on since 30 years.

No, Kurds come from Northern Iran. They started moving into the area after Ottomans conquered the area and started moving in Muslim peoples and they started permanently settling there after the Armenian genocide. Fun fact by the way; the commanders in the Ottoman army were Turks but the people in the army that actually wiped out Armenian villages were mostly made of Kurds.

And Assyrians do exist. I have an Assyrian friend that's living in Australia. He still has relatives that live in Mosul. They sent news to him about Kurds in the area destroying their villages and moving their own people in before ISIS captured the area. The colonisation and genocide still continues.

Sorry but I seriously can not respect anyone that can just brush these facts off and still continue to support a state that would be founded on murder of innocent people and the theft of land, just because the US media is favoring the Kurds these days. Don't be brainwashed, see the facts.

«12. . .1,3761,3771,3781,3791,3801,3811,382. . .27,89827,899»

Advertisement