Talk:The New & Improved Map Game (Map Game)

Starting Map
What map are you going to start with?ProfessorMcG 20:08, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

I got one...Paaaad 21:07, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire was created in the 300's AD. The Roman Empire wasn't even created yet in 500 BC. This is map is inaccurate. We need to restart with a new one.ProfessorMcG 01:50, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Or change the numbering, I think this is more like 500 AD.Oerwinde 16:09, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

You're numbering backwards. You've gone from 500 BC to 504 BC, which is further back in time. It should be 500 BC to 496 BC. Fegaxeyl 16:42, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

I've just added a new year (504BC) which is wrong. It should be either 504 AD or 496 BC. Its easy to change the AD/BC qualifier, but all the nations/kingdoms mentioned on the opening map are all AD states/people, so I am assuming that we should be talking 500AD onwards Rivendell78 16:46, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Ya... Sorry about the confusion... The map was 500 AD...

Haha... o.O ... geniusesProfessorMcG 23:44, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Rule Changes
This is the new and improved version, but none of the rules are improved.ProfessorMcG 01:10, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

508
The 508 map ignored both 505, 506, and 507 maps! Vandals still exist, Bugrundy and the Franks haven't conquered parts of the Wisigoths, the Byzanthines aren't on their glory.... Fedelede 21:19, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Name for Roman Empire
I know the Byzantine Empire was always the Roman Empire. But it wasn't that EXACTLY. Byzantium was the EASTERN Roman Empire. I wrote that it renamed itself to say that it was no longer the Eastern Roman Empire, but the Roman Empire as a whole.

Slav-Land
Sorry, but your idea needed to be shot down. The Slavs and Balts are a group of tribes, they can't be united by one man in one year at this stage.ProfessorMcG 18:20, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Implications
Do you realize what could happen in the future the way this timeline is going? Prussia will never be created, becuase there won't be any Teutonics, therefore a united Germany won't be conqeured Prussians (if the Saxon Empire ever becomes Germany). England will never be conqeured by the Normans. The English language will be entirely different. These are a few things I thought of just now.

Not to mention that rome might still exist in the form of an empire...Paaaad 18:52, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Romania
Romania was one of the names of the Eastern Roman Empire after the fall of the West. It didn't exist as an independent entity until 1866. Basically the Roman Empire encouraging the growth of a nation called Romania would be the equivalent to the USA encouraging the growth of a nation called AmericaOerwinde 20:36, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

But isn't this an alternate timeline, so can't this stuff happen?

== Carthage?==

Carthage hasn't existed for almost 600 years. Carthage rebelling against rome would be rather like Brittany rebelling against france, or Wales against britain. anyway, what was Carthage at this time was actually a Roman colony built on the same site as the original city, so most of the citizens would be Roman. Destroyanator 23:08, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

It makes about as much sense as the Huns emerging in Asia rather than Hungary or the Saxons repeatedly emerging from defeat stronger than they were before.Oerwinde 00:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, this is happening...in a way.--DaBigUn 00:54, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Darn, you've finally caught on.ProfessorMcG 01:58, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

This is a picture showing the extent of the Huns, why can't they settle down in a different area? This is an alternate history, just saying...ProfessorMcG 02:05, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

About Carthage, maybe the leader of the region broke off from the Roman Empire, noticing Rome's weakened state, in hopes of creating his own empire, he could've possibly named it Carthago, which is what it was called in Latin. They did speak Latin in the Roman Empire.ProfessorMcG 02:12, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

The Huns originated in Hungary, hence the name. The map shows the extent of Atilla's empire before he died. And thats the idea I had for Carthage. It would be based out of the Roman colony of Carthage, built on the ruins of the Phoenician colony of Carthage. They would be mostly Roman with some phoenician influences, where the current Roman empire would mostly Greek. So there would be cultural differences. Roman Carthage was also founded under the Republic rather than the Empire as well. Oerwinde 03:02, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

The Huns were a group of nomadic pastoral people who, appearing from beyond the Volga, migrated into Europe c. 370 AD. I guess that kind of debunked my theory.ProfessorMcG 03:28, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to fix the problem about the Huns, but I'm stumped about Romania, should I just rename it Dacia? They would still speak Latin, and maybe they went through a governmental reform or faced a decree by the real Rome that caused them to change their name.ProfessorMcG 21:12, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I was actually going to suggest Dacia. That was the Roman name for the region.Oerwinde 08:18, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Ostrogoths????
i may have already explained this, but 99% of the population in what was the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths was roman. why would they revolt against their own country. also, if it was an ambitious roman general ,why would he name his new kingdom after a people who conquered roman territory and killed roman subjects. that would be a enourmous public relations fail. Destroyanator 21:25, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

And whats the deal with the Slavs? You have to understand by saying Slavs we don't mean the Slavic state or Slavic Republic or Slavic Empire we mean isolated, seperate groups of tribes of Slavic descent.ProfessorMcG 21:44, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Both 526 and 527 are implausableProfessorMcG 22:03, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Saxons destroying Celts?!
How can "Arthur the Great" destroy the whole Celtic population in a single YEAR?! With that day's technologies, it would have taken decades, perhaps even centuries. I believe that to be too exaggerated. Fedelede 01:26, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Whoever is writing the "Arthur the Great" stuff is a moron. Especially decreeing that nothing can be written about him without permission.Oerwinde 08:16, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Who did the latest year? I LOL'd ProfessorMcG 12:11, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

I figured with the gains the Saxons kept making despite losing serious ground in multiple wars over a 10 year period would require HEAVY losses on the part of the Saxons. Any leader worth his salt would have abandoned those gains long ago for fear of losing control of his people, but Arthur the Great kept going, likely wiping out his own people to gain control over a hostile territory. The Anglo-Saxon British territories took hundreds of years to unify and conquer all of the British Isles. Arthur the Great did it in one. With the extermination of the celts, the British Isles being depopulated and the Saxons having only a few hundred left was the only plausible outcome.Oerwinde 16:42, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

You're right. How many people would be on Ireland now? 120? 140? same on Wales and Scotland. And on England, how many Saxons would be lost with so many multiple wars? The whole British Archipielago would have less than 5000 people. Fedelede 21:09, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Stop doing that with "Arthur the Great"! he's destroying a numerous and powerful civilization on 2 years, taking the Saxon population from 5,000 to "around 5 million" in 1 year by French citizens... I mean, Calthrina950... that is complete NONESENSE! Plus when you say "Saxons", "Balts", "Slavs", etc. that is not a kingdom. Those are a GROUP OF TRIBES. Fedelede 21:47, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Fedelede, and Oerwinde that's awesome. I'm thinking about making my own map game where I will delete one's post without pause or second thought. I need a starting year, 1430 is Renaissance, could be interesting.ProfessorMcG 23:10, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that would be interesting, McG. Fedelede 23:19, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is what I have so farProfessorMcG 01:00, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is what I have so farProfessorMcG 01:00, May 5, 2010 (UTC)




 * Remember the Italian states, like the Republic of Florence, the Republic of Siena, the Papal states, etc. Fedelede 01:29, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha =) I have it under control.ProfessorMcG 01:51, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * =( Somehow I saved over it. ??? I am almost back to where I was originally though =)ProfessorMcG 02:16, May 5, 2010 (UTC)



Arthur the Great=urge to kill
im normally a very calm person, but the Arthur the Great crap is really pissing me off. (i apoligize for the language). i mean wtf. you're taking all of the fun out of this for everyone else.the whole point of the map game is that anyone can edit anything, so by essentially claiming that no one can do anything to alter british hegemony over the North Atlantic area, you are elevating yourself to some kind of "higher" seat that the rest of us. so please, don't be a douche, and PLEASE, PLEASE, be realistic

thank you Destroyanator 00:18, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

another thought: if you want to make a timeline where a king named Arthur the Great creates a massive British Empire, go ahead. just not in the map game. Destroyanator 00:20, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

536
Yes! who was brilliant enough to write "Italia" instead of "Ostgoth" and putting "TRIBES" into Slavs and Balts? That's the less spam-ful year I've seen, including mines. Fedelede 01:56, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

I was going to underline TRIBES in bold, but I thought that would be too much.ProfessorMcG 03:22, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Future of the Map Games
Please check out Forum:Future of the Map Games for an important discussion regarding the map games. Mitro 14:50, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please check this out guys, it is very important. Mitro 15:41, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Religion
I know what has been missing, religion. We need to take into account paganism vs. Christianity.ProfessorMcG 20:49, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Note on population, religion
I'm not playing the game, just observing, but I am beginning to notice that whoever is "developing" France seems to miscalulate the populations of Europe immensly. I'd say there would probably be just under 3/4 million people in Europe at the time, and probably twice that in the Arab world. Saying that millions of people are attracted to France would be a gross miscalculation. It would also be phisically impossible, considering that France couldn't develop enough land to feed even a fraction of that population. Also, Muhammed has yet to be born for 200 years, so there is no muslim religion as of yet.

PS keep in mind that everything outside of the former roman empire is going to be pagan, not to mention most of Britain, northern France, and the Germanies.

BoredMatt 01:59, May 9, 2010 (UTC)BoredMatt

Completely right. Islam did not exist till the 7th century, almost 100 years in the future of this. Muhammad wasn't even ALIVE on the 540's. But... BoredMatt, I think on the pre-islamic era, less people lived on the Arabic peninsula than on Europe... Fedelede 02:29, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

France was part of the Roman Empire(Gaul). But whoever set up the papacy to start in 540-something is completely wrong. The first Pop was in the 1st century, not sixth