Discussion: Empire

Stargate525 · June 17, 2007, 11:08:25 PM

wow. Skimmed the last few bits, but I hope I got everything.

alright, the first thing I wanted to address is the UBER-Fl33T SH1P 0F D00M (had to, sorry). Now you guys are trying to think of how to move this thing, and I'm curious as to why you need to get it moving with rowers (after all, they need to eat, sleep, whatever) and wind would be entirely too weak I think. My solution I haven't heard anyone else say; why don't you tow it? build a couple dozen 'docking bays' (maybe eight to a side) which will accept a ship that's roughly the size of their standard fleet ship. The ship is tied onto the larger one, and uses its sails to move the bigger one. This frees up the large ship from having to make room for rowers, spare sail, whatever. I'm also thinking that they'd design a special kind of ship that's essentially a large sail which is designed for moving it (the warships would be used for when they're going into battle, but would move it slower). The auxiliary ships would undock for the battle and use the large ship as a base of fire, and since you're going for power over speed (Love the idea, btw), it suits them perfectly.

How were you planning on using this thing anyway? One of my favorite tactics in Galactic Civilizations (I hope some of you have played it) was to build an ultimate cultural center, turn it into a death star, then move it into the enemy territory. Usually they rebel and defect to you long before the ship gets close enough to strike. I could easily see this as a fantasy version of that, where the ship is brought into harbor and is a showcase of all that the empire has to offer (as well as showing off its enormous power) and giving them a chance to voluntarily submit. If they don't, well they can always fall back to 'blow up the planet.' Visually, I'm totally for seeing this thing looking like a Gould mothership without the pyramid.

On land, instead of having enormous peasant armies, you get masters of mechanized warfare that uses armies of peasants for power. As long as you go slowly, all sorts of possibilities open up. I can see a treaded, three-five story siege engine / mobile tower as something they would try, as well as a fully mobile castle (if you can design interlocking wall sections to connect the mobile towers and keeps, you're made). You're going power over speed, so they will tend towards bulky pieces of machinery than mobile infantry, at least in my opinion.

as for citizen rights, I'm again pulling from a book I just finished. Perhaps each territory is run by an extended family or clan or something similar, and are free to peaceably negotiate their own borders and politics within the empire. All citizens would be a member of one of these families(/clans/whatevers), and for loophole's sake there is a landless (non-territory controlling) family that consists of all the unwanted half-breeds and the ultra-lower-class peasants. Conquered peoples have three choices; live out their lives as un-familied residents (ie slaves), join the peasant family (not a whole lot better, but at least there are rights), or try and get into one of the better families throughout the empire (some would sell admission, some require military service, whatever). This talk of families makes it sound like the mob, but that wasn't my intention.

Language I could see several ways. One, there's a 'common' language, with the old language being the trade language (like latin, not commonly spoken, but a fallback to help bridge language barriers). Two, the empire's common language IS the trade language. Or three, the empire has a mandated language, but it's not often used except when the local dialects become too far separated. Two seems like the most obvious, with one being more interesting, and three a hotbed of revolution waiting to bubble up.

The name should not have 'empire,' 'imperium,' or anything like that in it. Smacks of star wars to me. If it needs a title like that, I'd side for something opposite what it actually is (people's republic of china comes to mind), so as to put the best face on it.

...I'm going to shut up now.

Túrin · June 18, 2007, 07:08:31 AM

I second Alcander as the name of the first Emperor. Reminiscent of Alexander, but not too obviously. It has a nice ring to it, but hasn't been used before AFAIK.

I also see no major problems with the timeline Lord Vreeg proposed. (On a sidenote: don't be afraid of stepping on anyone's toes. All ideas are welcome here, and if anyone doesn't like them, they can say so.)

Túrin

Ishmayl-Retired · June 18, 2007, 09:00:48 AM

I third Alcander. The name also lends itself well to a few empire names:

Alcan
Alcander
Cander
Canderia

The language and culture names could thus be:
Alcanian
Alcanis
Alcanderin
Alcanderan
Alcanderian
Canderan
Canderian
Canderis

MittenNinja · June 18, 2007, 09:10:47 AM

Quote from: Stargate525How were you planning on using this thing anyway? One of my favorite tactics in Galactic Civilizations (I hope some of you have played it) was to build an ultimate cultural center, turn it into a death star, then move it into the enemy territory. Usually they rebel and defect to you long before the ship gets close enough to strike. I could easily see this as a fantasy version of that, where the ship is brought into harbor and is a showcase of all that the empire has to offer (as well as showing off its enormous power) and giving them a chance to voluntarily submit. If they don't, well they can always fall back to 'blow up the planet.' Visually, I'm totally for seeing this thing looking like a Gould mothership without the pyramid.

I really like this idea. It gives the empire a sense of power and conquest without being too tyrannical.

I don't know how out there we want to get with things, but for land forces we could create something along the lines of guymelufs (spelling?) from Escaflowne. The empire would be the only ones who know how to create them and their enemies could easily have there hands on a few that they may have salvaged from battles but don't have the resources to create there own. This would easily explain why the empire has remained fairly unchallenged at this point.

Túrin · June 18, 2007, 10:07:40 AM

Quote from: IshmaylI third Alcander. The name also lends itself well to a few empire names:

Alcan
Alcander
Cander
Canderia

The language and culture names could thus be:
Alcanian
Alcanis
Alcanderin
Alcanderan
Alcanderian
Canderan
Canderian
Canderis

While I agree the name lends itself for this kind of adaptations, I'd like to warn against using one name for everything. Specifically, I say there should be at least two etymologically independent names for the following four concepts that will need names:

- the name of the first Emperor (Alcander works fine for me)
- the name of the Empire
- the name of its capital

For example, if we decide the people renamed their capital Alcandria after Alcander's passing, then the Empire shouldn't also be named after him, and vice versa.

In addition, we will need to name the founder of the New Empire.

Túrin

LordVreeg · June 18, 2007, 11:11:18 AM

[blockquote=Ish]I third Alcander. The name also lends itself well to a few empire names:

Alcan
Alcander
Cander
Canderia

The language and culture names could thus be:
Alcanian
Alcanis
Alcanderin
Alcanderan
Alcanderian
Canderan
Canderian
Canderis[/blockquote]

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing on the way to the office this morning, about naming the First Empire the 'Alcanian Protectorate', 'The Federation of Alcan States', or 'Big Al's Cantina'.

Turin, how far back did you want to run your tardis to run to get to the older empires? Since we are talking languages, we could have the formal language of Al's court being a debased form of older pre-empire Empire, and the common of Al's time being the Old trading language from the time of Cities X/Y/Z were fighting.

[blockquote=Stargate525]Language I could see several ways. One, there's a 'common' language, with the old language being the trade language (like latin, not commonly spoken, but a fallback to help bridge language barriers). Two, the empire's common language IS the trade language. Or three, the empire has a mandated language, but it's not often used except when the local dialects become too far separated. Two seems like the most obvious, with one being more interesting, and three a hotbed of revolution waiting to bubble up. [/blockquote]

This is a great angle to be looking at. I tend to see from both a historical and game play model that the real common language has become the trading language, which is actually a debased variation of the Totemic areas language. The common language the New Empire is trying to force down their throats is the old common, which declined in use for years during the dissolution of the empire. So forcing the border areas to use the Common of the Empire vs the Common trading lang of the borders can be a huge grudge match, as well as a social-status thing, and a citizenship issue. Bars with "Empire common spoken only', etc,

Then, we can take 'Al's old Formal Pre-Emppire lang', and use it on temples and buildings and as the language of the Saint-Church.

Again, just rough ideas. Languages used this way lends a lot of versimilitude, and helsp the creative forces understand the 'personality' of the time.

Wensleydale · June 18, 2007, 11:30:16 AM

QuoteThen, we can take 'Al's old Formal Pre-Emppire lang', and use it on temples and buildings and as the language of the Saint-Church.

Again, just rough ideas. Languages used this way lends a lot of versimilitude, and helsp the creative forces understand the 'personality' of the time.

I like this. *nods*

Now, as to the Emperors themselves, I like Alcander as the First Emperor, and Claud or Klaud (which means 'weak' or 'crippled') as the Emperor who caused the downfall. I also had this idea last night, that Alcander would actually be used as the 'title' for a warlord, or maybe even the Emperor, or just as a name signifying strength, i.e. -

Alcander I (the first Emperor)

Claud Alcander (the last Emperor)

(Name) Alcander (the refounder)

That would be if the Emperor's title became Alcander. HOWEVER, it would also work if it was used to refer to the first Alcander, and the Refounder named himself in this image - e.g. Julius Alcander (replace Julius with whatever name you want).

Stargate525 · June 18, 2007, 03:56:59 PM

Quote from: WensleydaleI also had this idea last night, that Alcander would actually be used as the 'title' for a warlord, or maybe even the Emperor, or just as a name signifying strength, i.e. -

Alcander I (the first Emperor)

Claud Alcander (the last Emperor)

(Name) Alcander (the refounder)

That would be if the Emperor's title became Alcander. HOWEVER, it would also work if it was used to refer to the first Alcander, and the Refounder named himself in this image - e.g. Julius Alcander (replace Julius with whatever name you want).

By the looks of it, the empire pretty much worships the old empire, so actually calling yourself by the name of the old founder might be taboo. I kinda like the sound of 'Alcan,' perhaps we could use it as the title for whatever sort of lower aristocracy we have?

Language, my vote's for 'Canderis.' We could also use that list of derivitives for locations. Perhaps the capitol city is named Alcanis, or something.

And what did people think about my mobile towers idea?

Xathan · June 18, 2007, 04:53:32 PM

I like the use of the old emperor's name becoming the new emperor's title. Yes, they do worship the old empire, but I don't see it being taboo, as long as they use the title as a title, and don't try to claim it as their full name, which probably would be a huge taboo.

Alcan sounds like a really cool idea for a name for lower ranking nobles, especially if we use Alcander as the title for the empire - that extra syllable is a massive gulf of power, and I like that.

I'm torn on the idea of the mobile towers. On the one hand, that would look awesome, with massive fotresses rolling across the land to bring the fight to their foes. On the other hand, from a military standpoint, it's just impractical. Even assuming the power to move these things is avaliable (which would require a massive amount of manpower, possibly even aided by animals and sails) those huge structures would be vunerable to sabatoge, and loosing one to a devestating spell or treachery would be a huge blow, while loosing an individual soldier, even a highly trained elite, is still only loosing an individual soldier. Alot of this will depend on how common high magic is in the setting: if every small enemy group will feature a low level sorcerer with a wand of fireball, the nature of warfare changes drastically, encouraging a more rapid, modern form of combat. (I don't think the level of magic was ever decided upon, or if it was I missed it somewhere along the line, which is very possible.)

Poseptune · June 18, 2007, 04:57:25 PM

Quote from: Xathan, Actually Back This Time(I don't think the level of magic was ever decided upon, or if it was I missed it somewhere along the line, which is very possible.)

I don't think it was either. If someone wanted to make a discussion thread for technology and magic levels, I wouldn't stop them.

Stargate525 · June 18, 2007, 05:04:08 PM

Quote from: Xathan, Actually Back This TimeI'm torn on the idea of the mobile towers. On the one hand, that would look awesome, with massive fotresses rolling across the land to bring the fight to their foes.

Aye, that it would.

Quote from: Xathan, Actually Back This TimeOn the other hand, from a military standpoint, it's just impractical. Even assuming the power to move these things is avaliable (which would require a massive amount of manpower, possibly even aided by animals and sails) those huge structures would be vunerable to sabatoge, and loosing one to a devestating spell or treachery would be a huge blow, while loosing an individual soldier, even a highly trained elite, is still only loosing an individual soldier.

Well if they have access to gears (and I'm assuming that they do) They can sacrifice speed for torque. Use a high enough gear ratio and a single person could move it (although inordinately slow). I figure a cramped tower with four levels (30 feet tall) would take a dozen men to move (6 to a side, bottom two levels are for them), and an additional eight to properly crew it (being a captain, communications officer, 2 soldiers and 4 ballista operators). If those are the average size, I honestly don't see one of these being any more expensive than building a moderate warship (nor the impact of losing one any more severe).

Quote from: Xathan, Actually Back This TimeAlot of this will depend on how common high magic is in the setting: if every small enemy group will feature a low level sorcerer with a wand of fireball, the nature of warfare changes drastically, encouraging a more rapid, modern form of combat. (I don't think the level of magic was ever decided upon, or if it was I missed it somewhere along the line, which is very possible.)

It can't be too high, magic-wise, or the Empire's strategy of power over speed is downright suicidal.

Xathan · June 18, 2007, 05:49:15 PM

Quote from: Stargate525
Quote from: Xathan, Actually Back This TimeOn the other hand, from a military standpoint, it's just impractical. Even assuming the power to move these things is avaliable (which would require a massive amount of manpower, possibly even aided by animals and sails) those huge structures would be vunerable to sabatoge, and loosing one to a devestating spell or treachery would be a huge blow, while loosing an individual soldier, even a highly trained elite, is still only loosing an individual soldier.
Well if they have access to gears (and I'm assuming that they do) They can sacrifice speed for torque. Use a high enough gear ratio and a single person could move it (although inordinately slow). I figure a cramped tower with four levels (30 feet tall) would take a dozen men to move (6 to a side, bottom two levels are for them), and an additional eight to properly crew it (being a captain, communications officer, 2 soldiers and 4 ballista operators). If those are the average size, I honestly don't see one of these being any more expensive than building a moderate warship (nor the impact of losing one any more severe).

See, even though cost-wise it would be similar to building a warship, with a warship, you can't have people sneaking underneath it and breaking axels, damaging tread, climbing on board it, jamming gears, etc. They'd be really vunerable to sabatoge. Also, history has shown us that big, lumbering land-based devices are extremely awkward - just look at the trouble that early tanks had, and they had deisel powering them. Now imagine something similar being powered by men or even beasts.

Also, a 30 foot tall tower would have to be extremely wide, or it would be too top-heavy to maintain upright over any kind of rough terrain.

Don't get me wrong - I'm really enchanted with the idea. I just think manpower would make these impractical. If, however, they had magical engines powering them...that could work.

Quote from: Stargate525
Quote from: Xathan, Actually Back This TimeAlot of this will depend on how common high magic is in the setting: if every small enemy group will feature a low level sorcerer with a wand of fireball, the nature of warfare changes drastically, encouraging a more rapid, modern form of combat. (I don't think the level of magic was ever decided upon, or if it was I missed it somewhere along the line, which is very possible.)
It can't be too high, magic-wise, or the Empire's strategy of power over speed is downright suicidal.

Not nessicarily, as long as they have effective countermagics, now that I think about it. High magic would allow the empire to have large, slow fields that would be near-impervious to magic, or great soldiers within them amazing powers - things like mobile version of Faerun's mythals., which would be amazingly cool.

LordVreeg · June 18, 2007, 06:02:02 PM

or, you could have tecno wiards, who offer a third alternative. They know about gears and cube/root law, but circumvent and augment them with spells that reduce friction, play with mass, and use weak elementals for steam power. Hell, they could be their own small guild, creating spells that increase the mass of arrows AFTER they are shot, or using air elementals to quadruple the range of ballistae.
Always fun to have a smaller army using this improve their odds in the battlefield. There's a love of da Vinci in most of us.

LordVreeg · June 18, 2007, 06:25:47 PM

Damnit! somebody got me offtrack, back into magic. You tower people finally got me...AAARGGG

QuoteI also had this idea last night, that Alcander would actually be used as the 'title' for a warlord, or maybe even the Emperor, or just as a name signifying strength, i.e. -

Alcander I (the first Emperor)

Claud Alcander (the last Emperor)

(Name) Alcander (the refounder)

That would be if the Emperor's title became Alcander. HOWEVER, it would also work if it was used to refer to the first Alcander, and the Refounder named himself in this image - e.g. Julius Alcander (replace Julius with whatever name you want).

I really like this as well. I think this makes it clear how much the new Empire wants to take on the mantle of the old.

what do people think about the 2 versions of the common language, Totem based from the outskirts, and old empire based being pushed by the new empire?

Stargate525 · June 19, 2007, 02:08:33 AM

Quote from: Xathan, Actually Back This TimeSee, even though cost-wise it would be similar to building a warship, with a warship, you can't have people sneaking underneath it and breaking axels, damaging tread, climbing on board it, jamming gears, etc. They'd be really vunerable to sabatoge. Also, history has shown us that big, lumbering land-based devices are extremely awkward - just look at the trouble that early tanks had, and they had deisel powering them. Now imagine something similar being powered by men or even beasts.

True, warships have the added benefit of being in the middle of water to protect that sort of thing... Although I have to say that many of those would become less of a problem with internalized mechanisms and a half-decent supporting infantry. These are not (nor perhaps could be) designed to be used exclusively. I would see them as a way to hammer in an offensive, works as a protection for archers, and a platform for heavy weaponry.

Quote from: Xathan, Actually Back This TimeAlso, a 30 foot tall tower would have to be extremely wide, or it would be too top-heavy to maintain upright over any kind of rough terrain.

Don't get me wrong - I'm really enchanted with the idea. I just think manpower would make these impractical. If, however, they had magical engines powering them...that could work.

manpower and width have nothing to do with each other. I do see what you mean though, these would be impractical on steep terrain, although a 15-20ft base should be enough for hills and such.

As for magical engines, what do you mean by that? Are we talking a magical internal combustion engine, or what?

Quote from: Xathan, Actually Back This TimeNot nessicarily, as long as they have effective countermagics, now that I think about it. High magic would allow the empire to have large, slow fields that would be near-impervious to magic, or great soldiers within them amazing powers - things like mobile version of Faerun's mythals., which would be amazingly cool.

The problem with high magic is that the way that D&D is set up, offensive magics are far more effective at large scale destruction than defensive magics are at large scale protection. When facing a magical attack, your best bet is to simply get out of the way. Unless you're shooting for a custom spell similar to the gungan shield (which would be frikkin AWESOME), magical protection might net you a few more minutes, nothing more.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Discussion: Empire

Stargate525

Túrin

Ishmayl-Retired

MittenNinja

Túrin

LordVreeg

Wensleydale

Stargate525

Xathan

Poseptune

Stargate525

Xathan

LordVreeg

LordVreeg

Stargate525