Concordia 2.0: Collab World

After finding and loving the old Concordia, I, with some much appreciated help, have decided to breathe some life into this project with a revamped version! Comments? Thoughts? Suggestions? :)
 
I'm thinking that we put the maps from the wiki on the thread - the physical map, the ones with resources and the ones with the empires so everyone can see them easily.
 
I'm thinking that we put the maps from the wiki on the thread - the physical map, the ones with resources and the ones with the empires so everyone can see them easily.

The only objection I have is that those maps are a little too big for this thread format. However, if you want to post them, go right ahead. In the meantime, I'll make the worlda version more available, and perhaps we can convert some of the larger maps over.

attachment.php
 
Waiting seems like a quick path towards this project dying a second death.

For now, I think we should divvy up the current nations that need rolls to whoever's here now, and hold the rest in reserve until more come. If someone finished the write up for a nation for the time-period we're working on at the moment, then they can move on to one from the reserve.
 
Alright, that sounds good. Luckily we have the dice model, and we can get the most recent political map from the old thread
 
I suggest that we leave Concordia behind, and start anew, with a new planet, with its own geography, and completely separate history and cultures.

The last project really only died when it came to writing the history, so that's a part that could be streamlined, or otherwise relegated only to interested individuals.

Rather than a couple of paragraphs to describe historical happenings, I recommend no more than one small paragraph.
 
I suggest that we leave Concordia behind, and start anew, with a new planet, with its own geography, and completely separate history and cultures.

The last project really only died when it came to writing the history, so that's a part that could be streamlined, or otherwise relegated only to interested individuals.

Rather than a couple of paragraphs to describe historical happenings, I recommend no more than one small paragraph.

Why should we start over? This project has already come so far, and all the other attempts to create earthlike worlds on this forum usually die near the dawn of history. And I think I understand why: nobody is interested in Bronze Age history. It's simply too slow and obscure. The only way to actually "complete" any of these worlds is to push on through the Bronze Age and into the Iron Age, which more people are interested in. Once we get there, things will start going faster.

However, I do agree that earler write-ups were a little too in-depth. While I appreciate attention to detail, it discourages other people from joining, and makes it harder for other writers to create the next piece of the timeline.
 
I think we should start over. The last project was fantastic, no doubt, but it simply became too dense- I don't even mean bronze age history being boring in general, but the way it was written, there was just too much information packed into it. It would've been impossible for anyone to make sense of the massive amount of information. If we start again, give new people a chance, and more importantly keep it streamlined, I think we can have a much more succesful project. I feel we should involve the original creators, but otherwise? Start from scratch.

Here's a possible new world.

Concordia2.0.png
 
As a participant of the early stages of the collaborative world project I support the idea of restarting it with a new map.

Additional I would suggest to replace the chronological description of evolution of cultures and civilizations with description of the world situation at a point in history chosen as the present time. The history of different states or regions could be then expanded in later entries.
 
However, I do agree that earler write-ups were a little too in-depth. While I appreciate attention to detail, it discourages other people from joining, and makes it harder for other writers to create the next piece of the timeline.

I'll admit I haven't dug too deep into the wiki but it feels very hard to find information, have all the things that correlate to it and be sure to have everything fitting.

While I agree that the Bronze Age tends to become like tar to most interested, perhaps we should reduce our investment into it and focus more on the Iron Age, leaving more room open for creativity of the writers and less of a base to start. That is, leaving the Bronze age vague. I know it is a risk (many, many things could go wrong), but now I feel is a calculated and experimented one. All the games we've had had the same focus and they failed in the end. Let's change what they all shared and maybe we can avoid their shared demise.

Here's a possible new world.
I think we should strive for a more ideal world, with more land on habitable latitudes and, for nature (this is just a suggestion), more archipelagos around, along and between the tropics and the equator. This equals much more ecological diversity.

Of course I will still try to help with the project if these changes aren't made, just that there are many things for me to do in December IRL so I might be slow.
 
As a participant of the early stages the collaborative world project I support the idea of restarting it with a new map.

Additional I would suggest to replace the chronological description of evolution of cultures and civilizations with description of the world situation at a point in history chosen as the present time. The history of different states or regions could be then expanded in later entries.

Agreed. I say we essentially copy the old project's methodology up to the point where linguistic groups begin to settle
 
I have this WIP of a map that I used in a previous map game that died on it's infancy and then expanded it. Maybe we could use it or some parts of it could be simply cut and pasted into the new world.

Eru Illuvatar's new world II.png
 
Why should we start over? This project has already come so far, and all the other attempts to create earthlike worlds on this forum usually die near the dawn of history. And I think I understand why: nobody is interested in Bronze Age history. It's simply too slow and obscure. The only way to actually "complete" any of these worlds is to push on through the Bronze Age and into the Iron Age, which more people are interested in. Once we get there, things will start going faster.

However, I do agree that earlier write-ups were a little too in-depth. While I appreciate attention to detail, it discourages other people from joining, and makes it harder for other writers to create the next piece of the timeline.

It had come too far, and had become too bloated. It will just dissuade those who weren't involved from joining in, and one could imagine that it was that which killed the project at all.

So, I think my suggestion stands to solve that. Streamline the write-ups, perhaps make the minimum about a paragraph, allowing people to write more if they want.

Instead of a system where every individual works on their own set of write-ups, we could try one where it is done within the thread itself, so that it doesn't seem that the thread has died, and people can see progress being made.

And with the maps and such, I can volunteer myself as a cartographer, once most write-ups for a region have come in, I could do the map for said region.

One another suggestion for streamlining the history is to have it based around a world-systems based approach. In the early bronze-age our core-states and periphery-states will be smaller and our focus will grow larger and larger until we have large empires and cultural spheres, taking into account events which can change things.

Instead of focusing on the history and goings-on of particular states, which just takes time and is boring, we will just write the history for any given state-system.

And of course, with more complex states, we'll have larger systems, and as such we'll be writing about larger and larger swathes of the globe as a result. A pretty good way to streamline the history.

And if we have the actual history being written in the thread, you don't need individual posters to labour over this, anyone should in theory be able to make suggestions. This should be required when our histories grow more in-depth with more complex states.
 
I think we should strive for a more ideal world, with more land on habitable latitudes and, for nature (this is just a suggestion), more archipelagos around, along and between the tropics and the equator. This equals much more ecological diversity.

Of course I will still try to help with the project if these changes aren't made, just that there are many things for me to do in December IRL so I might be slow.

It's not that literally- it's a rough draft. Continents can be adjusted, and archipelagos will be added as needed. It's more the idea of two opposed continents linked b a chain of large Polar isles, with one of them having a large gulf/ sea at the center
 
And I think that people arguing whether the bronze-age is more boring than the iron-age or whatever, that makes little sense to me.

It's the approach that's at fault. If you can write about the iron-age, you can write about the bronze age. It's not a lack of knowledge; there's only a few things you need to keep in mind when it comes to early bronze-age states and how they differed from later iron-age states. With differing technologies not solely to do with metal that can affect state formation and development, that's what needs to be kept in mind.

And again, we don't need details, we just need some sort check-list which would modify possibilities for each round of history for each world-system, technology being one of them. For example, if our check-list for whatever state says that said state does not have the technology for a state past such a size, then that round of history cannot have that state expanding past that size without collapsing or disintegrating.
 
Top