We need less Presidents and Prime Ministers!

[Farsun]

Let us get back on topic shall we?

What we need more of is culture. Deltaria for example, is shit now. It's barely kept to it's once proud heritage.

[Afrocentric]

Let us get back on topic shall we?

What we need more of is culture. Deltaria for example, is shit now. It's barely kept to it's once proud heritage.

It's easier to RP as a bland-American-esque style nation than one with an established culture. Not trying to make excuses for them or anything, but that's a big reason why people choose to ignore an established culture or refuse to create one.

It's part of the reason why most of the countries on here are your typical generic anglo-saxon nation with a President and/or Prime Minister, Capitalism, Christianity and somehow have the biggest and baddest military in the world.

Would you rather play in a 3rd world country, with an established/diverse culture or a 1st world country that lacks a culture and diversity? I'm willing to bet most people will pick the later.

[Siggon Kristov]

Would you rather play in a 3rd world country, with an established/diverse culture or a 1st world country that lacks a culture and diversity? I'm willing to bet most people will pick the later.

Yes, it's sad that most people would pick the latter.
I wanted to RP in Gaduridos as a 3rd world country, but beeman went there and now he wants it to be the UN host.
I try to RP Beluzia as a 2nd-world country, like some people perceive Russia or Kazakhstan.

[Aquinas]

Would you rather play in a 3rd world country, with an established/diverse culture or a 1st world country that lacks a culture and diversity? I'm willing to bet most people will pick the later.

Actually I'd love to play in a third world Particracy nation, and in the past have looked around unsuccessfully trying to find one. Roleplaying a third world nation might be more complicated than one might at first think, though. For a start, for realism, a "third world nation" would ideally want to develop relationships with several "first world nations" (who might be overseas aid donors, allies, bullies, etc.!). Secondly, it seems to me that many of the legislative options available in Particracy are skewed towards first world rather than third world countries. For example, it would probably not be realistic for a really poor country to have access to options like nuclear weapons, nuclear energy, space exploration programmes, stem cell research technology and the like. Some problems would arise with how the Particracy game engine would mark the ideological slant of different political parties. For example, if I role-played a big government socialist party, I might in theory want to vote for high levels of overseas aid, free national healthcare, a national education system,a generous welfare state and so on, but in role-play terms this might be impractical for an impoverished nation with no money that is struggling to cope with the latest famine. Role-playing realistically could mean I'd end up being graded as "small government" and "laissez-faire", even though those were not really the political values of my party.

[Siggon Kristov]

For example, if I role-played a big government socialist party, I might in theory want to vote for high levels of overseas aid, free national healthcare, a national education system,a generous welfare state and so on, but in role-play terms this might be impractical for an impoverished nation with no money that is struggling to cope with the latest famine.

Cuba.

[Farsun]

Whilst I might not be the most admirable case. I built Dorvik up from a middle of the road power to one of the leadingish powers in Artania. Whilst I may project myself militarily a little stronger than realistically imaginable, I think most people have come to agree that Dorvik is a military powerhouse(ish). I'd love to play in a 3rd world nation or even a uniquely cultural nation such as Trigunia.

[EEL123]

Let us get back on topic shall we?

Finally!

I might in theory want to vote for high levels of overseas aid, free national healthcare, a national education system,a generous welfare state and so on, but in role-play terms this might be impractical for an impoverished nation with no money that is struggling to cope with the latest famine.

Yes, like the Tukarese Democratic Union in Tukarali. I was there and they wanted to give foreign aid. Tukarali is a starving hole, for Christ's sake!

Secondly, it seems to me that many of the legislative options available in Particracy are skewed towards first world rather than third world countries.

Chances are because it was developed by a person from a first-world country, and because most players are from the first world.

[Amazeroth]

Rather like China, the structures the Roman Empire had did survive anyway - in the west, of course - if you look at the law systems of Langobards and Visigoths opposed to those of the northern Germanic nations, you can easily see that.

Those are the legal traditions. The Roman Empire increasingly delegated power - especially military power - to 'barbarian' rulers. If that is not decentralisation, what is?

That's not only legal traditions, they used all the bureaucratic structures as well, as well as much of the original organisational structures. And generally, any power the emperor delegates is a bit of decentralisation, regardless whether he transfers them to Romans or non-Romans. Although probably even the Chinese emperor had generals, and didn't lead the army into war all by himself. And I'm guessing that there were some offices like governors in China as well.

Gauls and Britons and Iberians (the non-phoenician ones) and part of the Italians were Celtic - a very close culture. Egyptians were hellenised, along with most of the eastern part, which would have been a cultural unification point as well. Sure, the same thing can't be said for Jews, some of the few German tribes that actually were part of the Roman Empire, or the Scythians, and some other nations, but most were either related like the Celts, or had "come up" under the same cultural ideals due to them being Greek colonies from the start, or conquered by Alexander the Great and subsequently hellenised (like Egypt).

I think you see these ethnic divisions as too simplified. There is very little in common nowadays between an Egyptian and a Spaniard and a Hungarian. The Celts were genetically similar, but culturally not so.

There is a huge lot in common nowadays between Spaniards and Hungarians - almost all cultural differentiations have been removed into folklore there - both can relatively properly be described as "Western". Apart from that, of course, today Spanish, Hungarian and Egyptians are different. But consider that in the days of ancient Rome, the Egyptians were hellenised actual Egyptians (and not the Arabs they are today), the Spanish were celts or phoenicians, and the Hungarians were still somewhere in what today is Russia, while where they are now was settled by celts. So you really can't take today's diversity as any indication for the diversity back then. And of course the Celts were not completely the same everywhere they settled, but they still shared some cultural similarities - and in any case much, much more than the different inhabitants of the Mongol Empire.

[EEL123]

Damnit, off topic again.

That's not only legal traditions, they used all the bureaucratic structures as well, as well as much of the original organisational structures.

Not really. The barbarians had none of the centralised bureaucracy of the Roman Empire. They operated on a social and political order hovering between a state and a tribe.

And generally, any power the emperor delegates is a bit of decentralisation, regardless whether he transfers them to Romans or non-Romans. Although probably even the Chinese emperor had generals, and didn't lead the army into war all by himself. And I'm guessing that there were some offices like governors in China as well.

In a feudal system, the lesser lords were entities in their own right. These governors and generals were supposed to be extensions of the chief ruler's authority. And anyway, the fact that he got to delegate power to individuals and rescind this delegation, as opposed to almost irreversibly handing it over to a certain person and letting his descendants inherit power, shows the centralised power of the Roman and Chinese governments.

There is a huge lot in common nowadays between Spaniards and Hungarians etc. etc. etc.

If you look at a modern map, the Roman Empire would have encompassed eight languages groups. The Mongolian Empire encompasses five.

[Amazeroth]

Damnit, off topic again.

That's not only legal traditions, they used all the bureaucratic structures as well, as well as much of the original organisational structures.

Not really. The barbarians had none of the centralised bureaucracy of the Roman Empire. They operated on a social and political order hovering between a state and a tribe.

They had none when they came, but if they stayed, they used it. Granted, not everywhere - the Vandals, as far as I know, did no such thing - but at least in upper Italy and Spain, that is the Langobards and the Visigoths, did.[/quote]

And generally, any power the emperor delegates is a bit of decentralisation, regardless whether he transfers them to Romans or non-Romans. Although probably even the Chinese emperor had generals, and didn't lead the army into war all by himself. And I'm guessing that there were some offices like governors in China as well.

In a feudal system, the lesser lords were entities in their own right. These governors and generals were supposed to be extensions of the chief ruler's authority. And anyway, the fact that he got to delegate power to individuals and rescind this delegation, as opposed to almost irreversibly handing it over to a certain person and letting his descendants inherit power, shows the centralised power of the Roman and Chinese governments.[/quote] Sure, but I wouldn't debate that Romans and Chinese were decentralised. What happened in Western Rome however was not the Emperor willfully giving out inheritable titles. It was the failing of a centralised system that lacked the necessary amount of power to keep a centralised form of organisation, that lacked the necessary amount of power needed to not create inheritable titles. I do confess however, that I have no idea what I was originally debating about with this strand of the discussion.

There is a huge lot in common nowadays between Spaniards and Hungarians etc. etc. etc.

If you look at a modern map, the Roman Empire would have encompassed eight languages groups. The Mongolian Empire encompasses five.

If that's true, that map is completely wrong. There are definitely more than eight language groups in the area of the Roman Empire. There are probably more than eight language families even. And there are a whole lot more where the Mongolian Empire was. However, with the Roman Empire, you'd also have to consider that a lot of these language groups, and even families, weren't there in the times of ancient Rome - namely those, of course, who were brought with them by all the riding hordes that came afterwards, but also all the different groups that came out of Latin, Germanic, Celtic, and whatever happened in north Africa and the Levante.