View Full Version : BirdNES 3 Survey


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 06:13 PM
I have been working on a new NES that is really a redo of my first one with major changes. Before I expend the effort to finalize all the various aspects of this game I would like to gauge how much interest there might be, so please vote based on the summary descriptions posted here. You may ask questions and offer suggestions too.

Game begins 1492ish
5 year turns

Rules would use the best or most appropriate parts of BirdNES 1 & 2 including:
VoD and Trade
Less elaborate black box stats
Mercenary armies
European transition from mercenary to standing armies
Policies
Colonies
Religious strife

New items being developed:
Battle calculator to resolve wars
Regional as well as national stats
Clearly defined tech tree for weapons and warships
Government type impact on economics and tech change
Automatic spread of technology across regions

New Roles
BirdNES 1 had nation players and a Pope who had a different kind of role in the game, and towards the end, a pirate leader who preyed upon the lucrative trade between America and Europe. I have been working on several more non nation roles that might be fun: Bankers who would supply cash to needy nations (which all were in this time); Mercenary army leaders who will raise armies and rent those troops to European nations for gold; and possibly traders who will try to connect the world’s markets for their own profit. None of these are definite yet, except the Pope. I have sketched out how each might work, but making them integrate smoothly into play has yet to happen.

The tech tree is pretty far along and should enable me to include both European arms and armor along with those of the Americas, Africa and Asia. I am building it to reflect the advantages the Europeans had, but make progress and catch up possible by the non European regions. The three core paths are: a nation’s economic system, its progress in manufacturing technique and the weapons age it is in. The tree ends with the 19th C advancements of the percussion cap musket, Napoleonic cannon, and early ironclads.

The single biggest change will be the map. Europe and Asia will start as you might expect, but I plan on erasing all of the Americas, Australia and southern Africa and replacing those lands with entirely new land masses that will be cloaked until discovered. The new lands will be entirely new shapes. The "Americas" will still have the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans as playable nations plus other tribes. It’s just that no one will know where they are until they are discovered. Nations will have to actually explore to discover new lands or find trade routes to the east. This means that the finished maps of the cloaked lands will be completely fresh and new.

Earliest expected start date: late Jan 09; most likely: Feb 09.

Thanks!

Azale
Nov 25, 2008, 06:32 PM
I would join this no matter the non-nation roles you include :D

Would there be any reworking of the map besides the cloak of darkness?

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 06:54 PM
I would join this no matter the non-nation roles you include :D

Would there be any reworking of the map besides the cloak of darkness?All the hidden land masses will be entirely new. I've started on the map and actually have the continents in place. The tedious and painful work of filling them out is next. Was that your question?

LightFang
Nov 25, 2008, 07:01 PM
I'd consider it, yes. :)

So that's what you meant by reworking the map. I had thought that you were just going to make new nations up. :p

Lord_Iggy
Nov 25, 2008, 07:15 PM
Is this the end of BirdNES2?

silver 2039
Nov 25, 2008, 07:17 PM
Hell yes!!!

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 07:29 PM
Is this the end of BirdNES2?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7421152&postcount=1973

Is my latest word on it.

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 07:44 PM
Will who ever voted to play the non nation role let me know what roles interest you? I did not make the poll public, so I can't see who you are.

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 08:12 PM
To show what the starting map would look like, I grabbed Sheep's map and hid the areas where I will have new continents. Ignore the nations, they are sheep's.

alex994
Nov 25, 2008, 08:15 PM
I would love to join! But I have some problems with some of the things brought up.

What exactly do you mean a battle calculator to resolve wars (not battles)?

I'll bring other stuff up when they come up ;)

silver 2039
Nov 25, 2008, 08:16 PM
I see a mysterious land mass in the western corner.

dldnjstjr
Nov 25, 2008, 08:17 PM
What about the issue with Battle Calc vs Tactics?

Neverwonagame3
Nov 25, 2008, 08:19 PM
I'd definitely play if it's anything like what's previewed.

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 08:25 PM
I would love to join! But I have some problems with some of the things brought up.

What exactly do you mean a battle calculator to resolve wars (not battles)?

I'll bring other stuff up when they come up ;)It will resolve battles and therefore wars.

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 08:25 PM
I see a mysterious land mass in the western corner.Where? I don't see one.

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 08:26 PM
What about the issue with Battle Calc vs Tactics?What issue?

Ninja Dude
Nov 25, 2008, 08:27 PM
Where? I don't see one.

Nice cover up. ;)

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 08:28 PM
Nice cover up. ;)I'm practicing my mod skills.

alex994
Nov 25, 2008, 08:28 PM
What issue?

The calculator doesn't take into place tactics :p

Oh, you can win the battles and still lose the war bird ;)

Does this mean awards for Birdnes 2?!?! :D

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 08:30 PM
I would love to join! But I have some problems with some of the things brought up.

I'll bring other stuff up when they come up ;)I already brought them up.... Don't be difficult now, save it for the game. :p

silver 2039
Nov 25, 2008, 08:30 PM
Where? I don't see one.

I'll remember to save things in the future.

Matt0088
Nov 25, 2008, 08:31 PM
The calculator doesn't take into place tactics :p

Oh, you can win the battles and still lose the war bird ;)

Does this mean awards for Birdnes 2?!?! :D

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
BirdNES 2 will NEVER Die!(Hopefully)

Interested to see how this turns out Birdy. The unclear map part willl be fun.

North King
Nov 25, 2008, 08:38 PM
1) I'm not a fan of remaking continents, because anything that we do almost inevitably comes out looking inferior to Earth. Really, really against this.
2) The Cape of Good Hope was already rounded at this point by Dias. Likewise, Madagascar was well known to the Muslims.
3) It's a good thing you're changing the nations. :p
4) How are you going to model dynastic stuff? The Hapsburg Empire was vastly different from any other nation in Europe at the time. The Ottomans were likewise a nation unto themselves...

Luckymoose
Nov 25, 2008, 08:45 PM
To put it simply and awkwardly, I am harder than a diamond in an ice storm. :lol:

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 08:51 PM
The calculator doesn't take into place tactics :p
Does this mean awards for Birdnes 2?!?! :DI will find a way to include tactics. And I will think about awards. You are not the first to ask.

fantasmo
Nov 25, 2008, 08:59 PM
4) How are you going to model dynastic stuff? The Hapsburg Empire was vastly different from any other nation in Europe at the time. The Ottomans were likewise a nation unto themselves...

Having just finished reading a book about the Hapsburgs, I'd be quite interested to know as well.


Plus, you know. If you do make this, I'll totally be being Austria again, making this relevant to me. I do so love me some Hapsburgs.

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 09:09 PM
1) I'm not a fan of remaking continents, because anything that we do almost inevitably comes out looking inferior to Earth. Really, really against this.I thought you might be and am working to make "really good" continents. Part of my reasoning is that I want a better "discovery experience" than you can get with a known map. It would be a kind of alt history where the POD is not an event in the time stream, but rather in the geopgraphy.

2) The Cape of Good Hope was already rounded at this point by Dias. Likewise, Madagascar was well known to the Muslims. Actually Madagascar is on the map, just covered. To handle Dias, imight have to start a bit earlier or have him die at sea in 1485. :p

3) It's a good thing you're changing the nations. :p
4) How are you going to model dynastic stuff? The Hapsburg Empire was vastly different from any other nation in Europe at the time. The Ottomans were likewise a nation unto themselves...i don't know yet. I am hoping to get das' input on general classifications next month. Anything you have to say or suggest would be a great bonus too.

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 09:12 PM
Having just finished reading a book about the Hapsburgs, I'd be quite interested to know as well.
I would love to hear your suggestions too.

North King
Nov 25, 2008, 09:17 PM
I thought you might be and am working to make "really good" continents. Part of my reasoning is that I want a better "discovery experience" than you can get with a known map. It would be a kind of alt history where the POD is not an event in the time stream, but rather in the geopgraphy.

I suppose you could force the players to play in character by not letting them utilize IC knowledge.

Actually Madagascar is on the map, just covered. To handle Dias, imight have to start a bit earlier or have him die at sea in 1485. :p

I was talking more about what should be revealed than what the landmasses should look like.

i don't know yet. I am hoping to get das' input on general classifications next month. Anything you have to say or suggest would be a great bonus too.

Well, the Hapsburgs for one were more of an international enterprise than anything else; Italian and Dutch financiers, German soldiers, and American gold, all of which just happened to be nominally headed by Spain. It would require a much better economy model than most NESes have had to date.

silver 2039
Nov 25, 2008, 09:27 PM
I suppose you could force the players to play in character by not letting them utilize IC knowledge.

Hah as if that'll work. I think the new continents idea is a rather intriguing one.

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 09:40 PM
I suppose you could force the players to play in character by not letting them utilize IC knowledge.Very difficult and not much fun.



I was talking more about what should be revealed than what the landmasses should look like.Madagascar will show, I was rushing to get that posted and....



Well, the Hapsburgs for one were more of an international enterprise than anything else; Italian and Dutch financiers, German soldiers, and American gold, all of which just happened to be nominally headed by Spain. It would require a much better economy model than most NESes have had to date.I am trying to include financiers and the Wallenburg types and make the economics of exploration and war a bit more in keeping with reality. I see nations being poorer and more dependent upon borrowing to get things done and then the ventures have a cash "payoff", or not. That is part of the reasoning behnd the roles other than nations for folks to play. nations will not be self sufficient, but will have to rely on others to help them accomplish things.

silver 2039
Nov 25, 2008, 09:44 PM
I am trying to include financiers and the Wallenburg types and make the economics of exploration and war a bit more in keeping with reality. I see nations being poorer and more dependent upon borrowing to get things done and then the ventures have a cash "payoff", or not. That is part of the reasoning behnd the roles other than nations for folks to play. nations will not be self sufficient, but will have to rely on others to help them accomplish things.

Will this only apply to Europe or Asia also? Because Asia is a good deal difference and the majority of the income from those countries came from taxes or looting.

Birdjaguar
Nov 25, 2008, 09:50 PM
Will this only apply to Europe or Asia also? Because Asia is a good deal difference and the majority of the income from those countries came from taxes or looting.Asia will be different. That is why I will have regional stats and characteristics. At least in the beginning, the economic structures will be differnt as will the militaries. The tech tree is pretty far along, but still needs more integration with the econoimic models which need more work.

for those interested, I am using "The Pursuit of Power" by William McNeill for much of my thinking on how economics and war developed together in Europe between 1400 and 1800.

North King
Nov 25, 2008, 11:21 PM
Hah as if that'll work. I think the new continents idea is a rather intriguing one.

Very difficult and not much fun.

Au contraire, I think it would be better if you were to keep real continents and just have expeditions vanish into the unknown. This would be much more interesting than the usual explore, find, and settle routine that makes our NESes neverending expansionfests. Seriously, what exactly do you think will be gained by new continent designs? Will people actually care? No; they'll just roll over them like they're used to. And you'll lose a great deal of depth. To make half the world the same and half the world different is rather silly...

I am trying to include financiers and the Wallenburg types and make the economics of exploration and war a bit more in keeping with reality. I see nations being poorer and more dependent upon borrowing to get things done and then the ventures have a cash "payoff", or not. That is part of the reasoning behnd the roles other than nations for folks to play. nations will not be self sufficient, but will have to rely on others to help them accomplish things.

Makes sense. Some nations used this a lot more than others, though.

silver 2039
Nov 25, 2008, 11:28 PM
Au contraire, I think it would be better if you were to keep real continents and just have expeditions vanish into the unknown. This would be much more interesting than the usual explore, find, and settle routine that makes our NESes neverending expansionfests. Seriously, what exactly do you think will be gained by new continent designs? Will people actually care? No; they'll just roll over them like they're used to. And you'll lose a great deal of depth. To make half the world the same and half the world different is rather silly...

How will that prevent expansion? In the end you know whats out there and you know what to do to take it over. With a different landmass there's a real element of exploration and discovery. You don't know what the land is like, or the people. You actually need to explore it.

North King
Nov 25, 2008, 11:58 PM
How will that prevent expansion? In the end you know whats out there and you know what to do to take it over. With a different landmass there's a real element of exploration and discovery. You don't know what the land is like, or the people. You actually need to explore it.

Oh noes, we actually have to explore... that doesn't really do much in the grand scheme of things except give us a nonsensical continental layout (I wonder what scientists on this Earth will think of that loony theory of plate tectonics). At least with Earth's continents, people know the general lines of development and should at least know intellectually where to draw their boundaries.

silver 2039
Nov 26, 2008, 12:05 AM
Yes boundaries. Just like this right? What reasonable boundaries.

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/4453/800pxspanishoverseasempdp5.png

Face it both NESers and humans in general will try to keep expanding as much as possible no matter what. The case with different continents will slow it down to a more reasonable level. And make it more intreasting for the player as exploration results in genuine discovery of new lands.

Birdjaguar
Nov 26, 2008, 12:16 AM
Au contraire, I think it would be better if you were to keep real continents and just have expeditions vanish into the unknown. This would be much more interesting than the usual explore, find, and settle routine that makes our NESes neverending expansionfests. Seriously, what exactly do you think will be gained by new continent designs? Will people actually care? No; they'll just roll over them like they're used to. And you'll lose a great deal of depth. To make half the world the same and half the world different is rather silly...


How will that prevent expansion? In the end you know whats out there and you know what to do to take it over. With a different landmass there's a real element of exploration and discovery. You don't know what the land is like, or the people. You actually need to explore it.there are two issues here. The first is an exploration one and the second is related to the endless expansion that seems to be a part of many games.

A new map does not address the second issue only the first. What i would hope to gain (and the players too) would be the game play fun of uncovering an unknown world where one doesn't know what lies beyond the cloak. Like an alt history game, at the point of departure, the old history slides aside to make way for the new. In this game, history and its players remain the same, but the stage has changed and players must find their way without guidance from what they already know about the world map. Columbus is sure to find something, but as the ruler of Spain you don't know what. To circumnavigate the world one cannot assume that sailing south and west will bring success. I want to add some mystery. For this game I want the players to wonder what's out there?

As far as keeping expansion in check, I feel pretty good about what I learned in BirdNES 1-2 and how to slow that down. I am trying to build into the tech tree some of the elements that will control wild growth.

North King
Nov 26, 2008, 12:19 AM
Silver, do you even know how that empire was acquired? Beyond the "conquered the Aztecs and Incas" bit that everyone knows? Yes, those were reasonable boundaries, and they happened for a reason.

And no, nations in real life don't just keep expanding for no particular reason. That's a remarkably American outlook, really, and just doesn't bear out when you look at the historical record. Actually, the Hapsburgs are a good example of that (cue mockery from people who don't actually know much about the Spanish Empire).

I don't see how different continents located in the exact same place as the Americas will be slower to expand onto than the Americas would be. I also don't see the point of making Bird go through all the work that a legit set of continents would have to be. I also think the idea of a half real, half fake map is inherently dumb, unless its a feature of the NES, such as a fantasy or sci-fi world where somehow the two sides got hybridized.

Masada
Nov 26, 2008, 12:28 AM
I'm for it, I'm getting sick and tired of wars, and silliness, bring on the Merchant Banker :)

Wait the Hapsburg Empire conquered all that... I thought they just drew pretty lines on a map.. like the British were in a habit of doing for areas they had put one or two people through.

Birdjaguar
Nov 26, 2008, 12:31 AM
Oh noes, we actually have to explore... that doesn't really do much in the grand scheme of things except give us a nonsensical continental layout (I wonder what scientists on this Earth will think of that loony theory of plate tectonics). At least with Earth's continents, people know the general lines of development and should at least know intellectually where to draw their boundaries.
I am trying to be cognizant of earth's geography and how things maybe ought to lay out. Will it be a percect fit with what you might expect? Probably not. I will have to add some things like terrain or climate data to maps or discovery documents to keep players current on the state of the new world.

As I thought about this change, and I realize that it is a substantial one, I could not come up with any good reasons to keep the world as it actually is other than to do so because it is more realisitic. Are there other upsides?

While a new map is tons of tedious work, it does seem to have some pay offs for the game. I am open to ideas on how to make a earth map as interesting for play as an unknown map.

Masada
Nov 26, 2008, 12:36 AM
Heck, BJ if you have Civ 4 load up some of the mapping programs they have that replicate an earth like environment, roll that, and you'll have something similar to earth in terms of climate and environment with a different shape. Twist it to your hearts content.

Birdjaguar
Nov 26, 2008, 12:44 AM
Heck, BJ if you have Civ 4 load up some of the mapping programs they have that replicate an earth like environment, roll that, and you'll have something similar to earth in terms of climate and environment with a different shape. Twist it to your hearts content.
That is a good idea thanks. My map is pretty far along, but I talked myself into doing it NK style with a double black border all around and, well, the parts that are done look pretty good. I've paid close attention to NKs recent maps and tried to shamelessly rip off his style learn from them :)

Angst
Nov 26, 2008, 06:21 AM
One question. What about the Viking colonization of Greenland and America? Will they simply have hit somewhere random instead on this map?

I would probably play a merchant.

Dachs
Nov 26, 2008, 07:23 AM
I would express sincere interest in the Iranian situation. Ak Qoyunlu is still around in 1492, but they are about to go down the tubes. If the post-Nakhijevan Safavids were to be included instead, somehow, I'd be interested in playing as them. Them, or the Swedish Privy Council within the Kalmarunionen.
I'm for it, I'm getting sick and tired of wars, and silliness, bring on the Merchant Banker :)
Dude, all you even do in N3S is play merchant banker, don't lie.
Wait the Hapsburg Empire conquered all that... I thought they just drew pretty lines on a map.. like the British were in a habit of doing for areas they had put one or two people through.
They conquered almost all of that, actually. A remarkably large chunk of those territories was physically garrisoned by Spanish Habsburg soldiers and governed by their ministers by 1550, too. The map is only showing Spanish claims after their 18th century acquisition of Louisiana, though.

das
Nov 26, 2008, 07:58 AM
I would much rather it be on real Earth. I understand the appeal of making the New World a, well, new world, but IMHO it's not worth the damage to the immersion factor. Ofcourse, I am biased inasmuch as I happen to believe the actual exploration to be relatively uninteresting and secondary to what you do with the newly-discovered lands and the peoples that live therein, which is what most players should be concerning themselves with in any case.

I do hope that natives will die out properly this time. :p IMHO it would be much better to do a straight historical NES instead of adding one setting gimmick or another, because there never were many historical NESes around at all, certainly not with the kind of realism that you definitely could provide.

Birdjaguar
Nov 26, 2008, 08:41 AM
I would much rather it be on real Earth. I understand the appeal of making the New World a, well, new world, but IMHO it's not worth the damage to the immersion factor. Ofcourse, I am biased inasmuch as I happen to believe the actual exploration to be relatively uninteresting and secondary to what you do with the newly-discovered lands and the peoples that live therein, which is what most players should be concerning themselves with in any case.

I do hope that natives will die out properly this time. :p IMHO it would be much better to do a straight historical NES instead of adding one setting gimmick or another, because there never were many historical NESes around at all, certainly not with the kind of realism that you definitely could provide.Thanks, das. I don't quite get what you mean by "damage to the immersion factor". If I understand player "immersion", I would think that it would enhance it.

I clearly have a bias towards wanting a strong exploration component to this game (and my other two also). In my mind an earth map weakens the exploration element because everyone knows what is where and what will happen. The game can become very predictable. I think that using the map as the POD rather than some other prior historical event provides a credible base for an alt history. I do not plan on having the Aztecs gunpowder equipped or change the historicity beyond the maps themselves.

Now could such an emphasis be a distraction form the other business of war and conquest in Europe and Asia? Maybe for some, but I do not expect everyone to become a seafaring nation and have colonies. That is why I want to upgrade the notion of government and economics to include more interesting options. If war necessitates borrowing money from another player and then paying it back, as well as renting troops from a second, well the opportunities can get interesting and hopefullly fun.

Dachs
Nov 26, 2008, 08:48 AM
We can already handle renting troops to other empires. Luckymoose did it in AFSNES, but with horrifying results. :p

Disenfrancised
Nov 26, 2008, 08:57 AM
Hmmm I'll probably pass on playing as I'm pessimisticly sure despite your best efforts NESers colonisation will fill me with seething rage ;).

As to a 'new world' it sounds interesting, but you are constrained by whats already there - you need to set up a system that'll produce a gulf stream, let the southern ocean circulate freely etc. Since I'm likely not playing I'd be happy to have a chat the map with you and work out some ecology.

Additionally the effect of not having/delaying access to 'American' precious metals and super crops will be immense, it'll be interesting to see how you handle it.

Birdjaguar
Nov 26, 2008, 09:12 AM
Hmmm I'll probably pass on playing as I'm pessimisticly sure despite your best efforts NESers colonisation will fill me with seething rage ;).

As to a 'new world' it sounds interesting, but you are constrained by whats already there - you need to set up a system that'll produce a gulf stream, let the southern ocean circulate freely etc. Since I'm likely not playing I'd be happy to have a chat the map with you and work out some ecology.

Additionally the effect of not having/delaying access to 'American' precious metals and super crops will be immense, it'll be interesting to see how you handle it.I have no plans to diminish the value of the Americas in terms of crops or wealth. Mimicking ocrean currents and wind patterns is more difficult, but I have yet to see game play on a "real" earth where players paid the slightest attention to actual wind patterns to shape their efforts. Your thoughts on the map would be welcome.

I think that five year turns will help keep expansion under control and within limits of reasonableness.

das
Nov 26, 2008, 09:14 AM
Thanks, das. I don't quite get what you mean by "damage to the immersion factor". If I understand player "immersion", I would think that it would enhance it.

Well, to some extent yes, but changing some parts of the world to any serious extent (incidentally, what would change and what would be left the same? Will you just change the Western Hemisphere?) whilst leaving the others and their history essentially the same naturally strains the believability (perhaps more than it logically should, since it is not impossible, but rather simply looks needlessly bizarre at least at first), and that does hurt the immersion factor (at least in my case).

In my mind an earth map weakens the exploration element because everyone knows what is where and what will happen. The game can become very predictable.

In all due honesty I think you do underestimate the maturity of most NESers in this regard, or rather the public annoyance with regards to this particular sort of meta strategy. Besides, I doubt it would get too predictable at all: it certainly wasn't last time, and not just because of the stronger-than-OTL native resistance.

Herein, though, lies the problem: we don't know whether we can count on a honour system in this matter, and we don't know if it would fall into a boring pattern or not, because things like this have rarely been done before and I don't remember if they have ever been done properly at all, no offense intended to anyone. I understand that ultimately none of this is an adequate replacement for genuine exploration, but surely there might be other ways of spicing it up like various natural disasters and events on which central authority of the colonial powers can have little influence, i.e. the behavior of the captains on the ground (though you might make some of them non-nation players, I suppose).

If war necessitates borrowing money from another player and then paying it back, as well as renting troops from a second, well the opportunities can get interesting and hopefullly fun.

I just hope this is in reference to mercenaries and banks and the like; it is not impossible for nations to borrow from nations, but why do that when there are banks that are not also potential military opponents?

Dachs
Nov 26, 2008, 09:14 AM
but I have yet to see game play on a "real" earth where players paid the slightest attention to actual wind patterns to shape their efforts.
Since they have an enormous effect on trade, I dub this comment 'uninformed'. Disenfrancised himself probably pays the most attention to this, famously employing 'Virupakkha's Breath', but it's also pretty important in other stuff, like N3S III.

das
Nov 26, 2008, 09:20 AM
What you said. I think Symphony D. used it at some point or another but can't quite recall. Kal'thzar and some others have also used weather patterns and the like, though mostly for tactical purposes.

Kal'thzar
Nov 26, 2008, 09:38 AM
it was hardly time to use it for a transatlantic crossing das.....most of the other players would have screamed, at you, and at me :p


Bj, all I can say is I'm very intrested in the new continents idea as it helps with the exploration side of things, and so long as you can say in general what works with what (gulf stream etc), then I'm fine with it, the bits round the edges can be filled in as needed.

Birdjaguar
Nov 26, 2008, 10:48 AM
Well, to some extent yes, but changing some parts of the world to any serious extent (incidentally, what would change and what would be left the same? Will you just change the Western Hemisphere?) whilst leaving the others and their history essentially the same naturally strains the believability (perhaps more than it logically should, since it is not impossible, but rather simply looks needlessly bizarre at least at first), and that does hurt the immersion factor (at least in my case). If you look at the posted map, everything cloaked, except Madagascar, will be new, different or perhaps not there. It is tough to create the 14th C mind set in players that the Indies are just across the Atlantic. Having no continent at all might be a bit of a surprise.

In my thinking at this point I see little need to change the history of the lands that change shape. The history of Australia and southern Africa was not of great consequence to the world picture. To add an isolated southeast Asian kingdom to some more remote corner of the globe might be interesting, but for now it is not part of the plan.

I see pre columbian American history pretty much the same as it happened even if the proximity of nations is rearranged a bit.

Birdjaguar
Nov 26, 2008, 11:29 AM
In all due honesty I think you do underestimate the maturity of most NESers in this regard, or rather the public annoyance with regards to this particular sort of meta strategy. Besides, I doubt it would get too predictable at all: it certainly wasn't last time, and not just because of the stronger-than-OTL native resistance.I agree that it didn't unfold predictably in BirdNES 1, for a variety of reasons. But players knew where the gold was and where the resources were and where they needed to be to be strategically positioned for the future. Yes I can use Acts of God to make it more difficult for explorations and settlements to succeed, but that doesn't change the fact that the Cape of Good Hope is a smart choice for settlement no matter the effort required to control it.

I asked NK to post what he thinks are the advantages of using historical map and I would like you to do the same. You have mentioned two so far: emphasis on non exploratory game play and the fuzzy (for me) idea of immersion. Any others?

Why is this any different than another Alt history POD?


Herein, though, lies the problem: we don't know whether we can count on a honour system in this matter, and we don't know if it would fall into a boring pattern or not, because things like this have rarely been done before and I don't remember if they have ever been done properly at all, no offense intended to anyone. I understand that ultimately none of this is an adequate replacement for genuine exploration, but surely there might be other ways of spicing it up like various natural disasters and events on which central authority of the colonial powers can have little influence, i.e. the behavior of the captains on the ground (though you might make some of them non-nation players, I suppose).My goal is to do it properly. There are ways to improve exploration with a OTL map that have not been mentioned yet, but I do not see them as exciting for players as the idea of a new map.

Birdjaguar
Nov 26, 2008, 11:40 AM
Since they have an enormous effect on trade, I dub this comment 'uninformed'. Disenfrancised himself probably pays the most attention to this, famously employing 'Virupakkha's Breath', but it's also pretty important in other stuff, like N3S III.I amy be uninformed, since i do not play many games. I do though read many of the posted rules. I cannot ever remember seeing a mention of the "Gulf Stream" or "Pacific Current". N3S III is not earth and NK is a meticulous developer. He would try to include wind and currents into his games.

My approach is not to figure out what the winds and currrents would be/are, beyond a very broad brush view, but just have a tech/navigation level that is called something like "Understands Ocean winds and currents" and then once that is reached, add some trade bonus or new opportunity.

das
Nov 26, 2008, 11:57 AM
I asked NK to post what he thinks are the advantages of using historical map and I would like you to do the same. You have mentioned two so far: emphasis on non exploratory game play and the fuzzy (for me) idea of immersion. Any others?

Technically, the entire argument of historicity is also an argument for a historical map as opposed to a partly modified one. Purely historical NESes simply haven't been done enough for us to come anywhere near realising much less exhausting the full potential of the period as it was, including our New World and the many different ways it could be colonised and roles it could play. Changing the New World detracts from the actual possibility of changing history inasmuch as its very preconditions have already been changed.

Why is this any different than another Alt history POD?

Well, a different geography is an entirely different kind and rank of change; most other changes tend to be anthropogenic and so perhaps even reversible (sort of) or otherwise malleable, whereas this changes the situation in an entirely unalterable way. One thing is USA not being there, another entirely is North America as we know it not being there and a superpower based off that region being physically impossible. It's also a far bigger and more noticeable change on the map.

I suppose that mine are also aesthetic concerns, at least in part - a combination of real and random map continents will look bizarre, and not necessarily in a good way, though ofcourse it is too early to say that for sure.

Still, ultimately it is not all that different - I just think it might be better to make something rooted in real history (more or less, and up to this point, ofcourse), which demands real geography as well.

Birdjaguar
Nov 26, 2008, 12:16 PM
Technically, the entire argument of historicity is also an argument for a historical map as opposed to a partly modified one. Purely historical NESes simply haven't been done enough for us to come anywhere near realising much less exhausting the full potential of the period as it was, including our New World and the many different ways it could be colonised and roles it could play. Changing the New World detracts from the actual possibility of changing history inasmuch as its very preconditions have already been changed. Sound idea.


Well, a different geography is an entirely different kind and rank of change; most other changes tend to be anthropogenic and so perhaps even reversible (sort of) or otherwise malleable, whereas this changes the situation in an entirely unalterable way. One thing is USA not being there, another entirely is North America as we know it not being there and a superpower based off that region being physically impossible. It's also a far bigger and more noticeable change on the map.A western hemisphere super power is not out of the questions or is the idea that it is of English origin. What is less likely is that at 5 years per turn, the game will reach 1900 (80 updates).

I suppose that mine are also aesthetic concerns, at least in part - a combination of real and random map continents will look bizarre, and not necessarily in a good way, though ofcourse it is too early to say that for sure.

Still, ultimately it is not all that different - I just think it might be better to make something rooted in real history (more or less, and up to this point, ofcourse), which demands real geography as well.Whichever way the game goes (new or old map), it would be interesting to see some other game begin where this one leaves off using their own rules and ideas.

North King
Nov 26, 2008, 12:19 PM
A western hemisphere super power is not out of the questions or is the idea that it is of English origin. What is less likely is that at 5 years per turn, the game will reach 1900 (80 updates).

No one expects it to. However, I would dispute that an NES only impacts people when they're playing. If you think the players won't imagine how history would have played out even after the NES is completely dead and gone, then you're seriously underestimating the nerdiness of the people here.

Whichever way the game goes (new or old map), it would be interesting to see some other game begin where this one leaves off using their own rules and ideas.

In all likelihood, there won't be one. There are so few people around who are even willing to mod, and most of those people are busy with their own ideas.

Angst
Nov 26, 2008, 12:32 PM
Well, disregarding the longer posts of the more sophisticated individuals in here, I would like to add that I would be delighted to play with an alternate Americas.

Dachs
Nov 26, 2008, 12:52 PM
I amy be uninformed, since i do not play many games. I do though read many of the posted rules. I cannot ever remember seeing a mention of the "Gulf Stream" or "Pacific Current". N3S III is not earth and NK is a meticulous developer. He would try to include wind and currents into his games.
Just because they ain't in the rules doesn't mean that they don't have an effect on How Stuff Happens. The fact that the seasonal monsoon biases Indian Ocean trade in a particular manner isn't necessary to put in a ruleset.
My approach is not to figure out what the winds and currrents would be/are, beyond a very broad brush view, but just have a tech/navigation level that is called something like "Understands Ocean winds and currents" and then once that is reached, add some trade bonus or new opportunity.
Understanding how they work can be important to colonial interaction and geography, though, and can have macrohistorical implications, on a level that the player might need to understand and deal with.
Technically, the entire argument of historicity is also an argument for a historical map as opposed to a partly modified one. Purely historical NESes simply haven't been done enough for us to come anywhere near realising much less exhausting the full potential of the period as it was, including our New World and the many different ways it could be colonised and roles it could play. Changing the New World detracts from the actual possibility of changing history inasmuch as its very preconditions have already been changed.
I agree with this thing.
Whichever way the game goes (new or old map), it would be interesting to see some other game begin where this one leaves off using their own rules and ideas.
Except for the problem of manpower, yeah. In case you haven't noticed, there haven't been many particularly successful NESes centered around this time period in recent years, other than yours. :p

The Strategos
Nov 26, 2008, 12:58 PM
Clearly defined tech tree for weapons and warships

I assume this will not be the infamous “scientists can predict the future syndrome” and a pre-Scientific revolution world is recognized.

BirdNES 1 had nation players and a Pope who had a different kind of role in the game...

I hope that you will not pigeon-hole the Pope into a non-military diplomatic "power" like the BirdNES Pope ended up being. Renaissance Popes were so interesting.

The single biggest change will be the map. Europe and Asia will start as you might expect, but I plan on erasing all of the Americas, Australia and southern Africa and replacing those lands with entirely new land masses that will be cloaked until discovered. The new lands will be entirely new shapes. The "Americas" will still have the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans as playable nations plus other tribes. It’s just that no one will know where they are until they are discovered. Nations will have to actually explore to discover new lands or find trade routes to the east. This means that the finished maps of the cloaked lands will be completely fresh and new.


Too much work for too little result (impacting what two to five players?); very likely to be aesthetically displeasing (especially if the newer, more accurate map is used for the pre-revealed world); increased burden of moderator to explain climate, topography, mineral dispersion, etc. of all lands settled; artificially raising importance of colonization and exploration above historical norms (ideally, I would like to see this NES avoid the BirdNES situation where a trade post of 100 men was worth more than a European city of tens of thousands); assumes that native culture and history isn’t shaped by geographic factors. Those were my thoughts in roughly that order.

But if I played, I wouldn’t play a colonizing power anyway, as those things don’t interest me, so I am not the target audience your proposed change would go after anyway.

das
Nov 26, 2008, 01:20 PM
A western hemisphere super power is not out of the questions or is the idea that it is of English origin. What is less likely is that at 5 years per turn, the game will reach 1900 (80 updates).

I do not deny that it still will be a possibility; all the same, both the way there and the final result will be quite different and not just due to the intents of the players and the in-game decisions of the moderator.

This way it will either be a half-historical NES or, if you decide to minimise the large-scale differences, a mostly historical but still somewhat warped NES. Once again, some fairly similar things have been tried before and was not all that bad; and I do not deny that your plan would probably be very good and fun, and I probably will play regardless; but it would still be great to have a purely historical NES, for various reasons already discussed.

Birdjaguar
Nov 26, 2008, 01:52 PM
I assume this will not be the infamous “scientists can predict the future syndrome” and a pre-Scientific revolution world is recognized. I hope so. One question my mind is whether or not to have the tech tree a known entity, as in Civ, or have it and the paths to various levels unfold slowly. In a historical setting, it is difficult to hide that the step after "carracks" one needs a larger better ocean going vessel very much like the "galleon". That step can be ovbvious and open or masked a bit by the need for other less obvious intermediary steps that are not "known".

ATM tech is mostly about weapons, warfare and ships. Pre gunpowder is there, but less differentiated. The weapons ages are Bronze, Iron, Imperial, Medieval, and Gunpowder 1-3. Those are nested into several other interactive tracks so it is not quite so simple as movng from one to the next.


I hope that you will not pigeon-hole the Pope into a non-military diplomatic "power" like the BirdNES Pope ended up being. Renaissance Popes were so interesting.Yes, I hope to expand his role and influences. Your ideas on what to include are welcome.

...(ideally, I would like to see this NES avoid the BirdNES situation where a trade post of 100 men was worth more than a European city of tens of thousands); assumes that native culture and history isn’t shaped by geographic factors. Those were my thoughts in roughly that order. I agree about the trading posts; please elaborate regarding the bolded text.

Question for all: Should the tech tree be revealed to players?

BTW, if not, it is certainly harder to discuss and fix problems.

Angst
Nov 26, 2008, 01:55 PM
The tech tree shouldn't be revealed. To disenfranchised, perhaps, otherwise no.

Birdjaguar
Nov 26, 2008, 01:56 PM
Back in an hour or so.

Dachs
Nov 26, 2008, 02:01 PM
The tech tree shouldn't be revealed. To disenfranchised, perhaps, otherwise no.
Why to him particularly?

Angst
Nov 26, 2008, 02:17 PM
Because he said that he wanted to help with the NES (map) since he wouldn't be joining. Too lazy to find link. :p

Matt0088
Nov 26, 2008, 02:39 PM
Let the tech tree be unknown, makes it more realistic.

Masada
Nov 26, 2008, 02:52 PM
BJ, others, I think your making a mountain out a mole hill, does changing the America's matter terribly for immersion over a 5 turn set? No. Any changes in currents, winds, or where the Aztecs are does not matter when you have 5 year turns. No trip aside from the very longest will take 5 years, there will little marked difference because of the 5 year turns. I wouldn't get hung up on details, they would be obliterated in relevance by the long turn set, over a sufficiently long turn set in NESing, the real effects of minor changes are less apparent and can be assumed in the long run to be nil. Course over time the accumulated effect increases, but even then I doubt overall the effect would be that large, or large enough to significantly affect the outcome.

A nice rational assumption to make is that your captains, merchants, farmers etc are rational and generally do what is best for them, for captains it will be traveling the quickest way for them, to get from points A) to B), the knowledge well un-knowledge of the captain is the deciding factor, enter Tech, New World South Currents or random event whatever to give that knowledge, then you can assume some sort of tangible benefit as compared to everyone else instead of coming up with much harder to gauge detriments [retrospectively]. Were not gods, if our farmers plant corn because its the best crop, do we need to know or control that? We can just assume that the most rational trade action is happening, then provide benefits for some (assuming that the trade has not been improved). Don't get in the habit of trying to come up with detriments for this and that, just set a base level assumed norm of say a trip from the America's of 5-9 months on a normal distribution, tech B) will decrease it to 3-8 months, tech C) will decrease it to 2-7 etc. Just make some assumptions and build the model around them, don't try to retrospectively create them, and fit them to the players actions...

Off to work.

The Strategos
Nov 26, 2008, 03:03 PM
please elaborate regarding the bolded text.

It was in response to this:


I see pre columbian American history pretty much the same as it happened even if the proximity of nations is rearranged a bit.

My argument is that cultures and histories are shaped by geography, and to change geography changes cultures/history so that to have the "Aztecs" who are like our Aztecs in everyway except in geography is...well wrong. In defense of this I present the case studies of England, Greece, and Egypt. Would it be reasonable to assume that English history and culture would be the same without the English channel? Without mountainous terrain would ancient Greek city-states have been as isolationist and independent and would sea-borne travel and trade have been as popular? Would Egypt’s history and culture be recognizable without the Nile? To place the Aztecs, Incas, et. al. in a different climate/geographical region and expect them to be the same is like expecting to see Egyptian history and culture to be the same if they existed in Iceland instead of Egypt.

Birdjaguar
Nov 26, 2008, 03:57 PM
It was in response to this:



My argument is that cultures and histories are shaped by geography, and to change geography changes cultures/history so that to have the "Aztecs" who are like our Aztecs in everyway except in geography is...well wrong. In defense of this I present the case studies of England, Greece, and Egypt. Would it be reasonable to assume that English history and culture would be the same without the English channel? Without mountainous terrain would ancient Greek city-states have been as isolationist and independent and would sea-borne travel and trade have been as popular? Would Egypt’s history and culture be recognizable without the Nile? To place the Aztecs, Incas, et. al. in a different climate/geographical region and expect them to be the same is like expecting to see Egyptian history and culture to be the same if they existed in Iceland instead of Egypt.Yes, I am aware of that problem and would find a way to remedy it. Aztecs in a New England woodland would be wrong.

North King
Nov 26, 2008, 04:03 PM
Oh, I'll also note that any enthusiasm I had for playing as a Native civilization was completely killed by this idea of a different map for the western hemisphere (which otherwise I'd be very excited about).

Ninja Dude
Nov 26, 2008, 04:05 PM
I'm kind of the opposite. I wanted to play as a native country, even if it was just the default map. But now I want to play a native country even more now that the continents are going to be different.

Birdjaguar
Nov 26, 2008, 04:08 PM
Any thoughts on whether or not the tech tree should be known given that at the macro level ist is fully known by all players including the indigenous peoples of the Americas or other unnamed lands?

North King
Nov 26, 2008, 04:12 PM
I'm kind of the opposite. I wanted to play as a native country, even if it was just the default map. But now I want to play a native country even more now that the continents are going to be different.

Well, I like the actual civilizations in question. If I wanted to make up my own, I'd go play a random map fresh start...

Luckymoose
Nov 26, 2008, 04:23 PM
I want to be a rebelling Netherlands again!

Birdjaguar
Nov 26, 2008, 04:26 PM
I want to be a rebelling Netherlands again!You're a bit premature, but, I will keep you in mind for that. ;)

Luckymoose
Nov 26, 2008, 04:27 PM
You're a bit premature, but, I will keep you in mind for that. ;)

I'm saying I will wait the 40 some odd updates. :p

Dachs
Nov 26, 2008, 11:24 PM
Because he said that he wanted to help with the NES (map) since he wouldn't be joining. Too lazy to find link. :p
Yes, I know, and that has jack-all to do with knowledge of the bloody tech tree.

das
Nov 27, 2008, 01:43 AM
To be honest, if the tech tree is real life based and liner than it would not really alter much, but do we even need such a tech tree when we can have separate technological advances and descriptive tech. levels as per BirdNES2 (or what I recall of it)?

Masada
Nov 27, 2008, 07:45 AM
Couldn't have said it better Das, tech trees are rather uncomfortable fits at best to say the least. Perhaps just working at an institutional level to determine the rate of technological advance would be best.

Birdjaguar
Nov 27, 2008, 09:47 AM
To be honest, if the tech tree is real life based and liner than it would not really alter much, but do we even need such a tech tree when we can have separate technological advances and descriptive tech. levels as per BirdNES2 (or what I recall of it)?
The problem that the tech tree over comes and the reason I developed it, is that of rapid advancement by all nations to the same level as Europe and Europe's inability to stay ahead in the arms race.

In the late 1400s, Europe was more advanced in ship design and the use of naval cannon, And while the Arquebus was widespread, no other nations advanced as quickly in the manufacturing and use of guns in war. Much of that progress was based in the economic structure and military orgainization that was present in Europe and not in the rest of the world. A tech tree can control the situation a bit. The tech tree is not stictly linear: arquebus, matchlock, wheel lock, flintlock, nor caravel, carrack, galleon, frigate. I've tried to weave multiple threads together that include:

weapons age
manufacturing capability
economic system (free market vs command economies)
military leadership
naval warfare
shipbuilding advances
naval advances
city defenses (siege)
and with das' help, government "type"

Maybe I'm making this way to complicated, but it seems to me that to ignore this aspect of the times is far more ahistorical than changing the map, which in 1490, no one knew what looked like anyway.

So you have raised the good question of whether or not there should be formal contraints on advancement or we let nations advance as quickly or slowly as they choose or have the resources for.

North King
Nov 27, 2008, 10:41 AM
Actually, while most of that is the convention, it's also simply not true. Europe was not somehow more advanced than other economies: China had a credit system, paper money, and all-around economic prosperity, perhaps more so during the Qing Dynasty than beforehand. India was not as sophisticated, but far richer than Europe. The Europeans, meanwhile, were roughly on a par with the Ottomans on land, technology-wise, anyway (until the 1700s or so).

In fact, just about the only area where Europeans conclusively lead was in naval technology. The Portuguese "Empire" was a string of outposts connected by sea routes who either pirated or extorted money from Asian shippers: their own merchant cargo was minimal in comparison. The Spanish Empire was more or less a giant mine for silver that would rather quickly make its way to other economies, either European or Asian.

There was no overwhelming tech lead until the Industrial Revolution, really.

das
Nov 27, 2008, 11:02 AM
Before anything else, I would like to disagree with the idea of putting economics and government types under "technology". The "civics" or how ever one might call them are a different sphere entirely. As for the rest, I still find a tech tree, as such, to be redundant.

IMHO rate of technological advances, as opposed to their implementation, should be left outside of the purvey of players for the most part and should occur as per the moderator's initiative, on the basis of an intelligent combination of a) OTL technological timeline (with some random fluctuations if you wish), b) nation stats and extra-stat factors (generally speaking urban, trading states would advance faster, though I am sure Disenfrancised would be able to elaborate on this), c) player initiative (but within reason; what I have in mind is more along the lines of, say, a ruler hiring alchemists to find some way to refine the gunpowder-making progress) and d) the general circumstances (warfare speeds up development of weaponry and things related to it, for a classical example. Unsuccessful naval expeditions tend to lead to improvements in ship-building even without player attention).

Generally speaking technological progress in pre-modern times is a question of need rather than will. This is best taken into account.

Fuschia
Nov 27, 2008, 11:36 AM
I honestly think the game would be better with a normal Earth map, but all of those arguments were already made.

Anyways, is there a limit of some sort to the sorts of non-nation roles that can be played? That is, a limit beyond realism, as that particular one is assumed.

Birdjaguar
Nov 27, 2008, 01:05 PM
Actually, while most of that is the convention, it's also simply not true. Europe was not somehow more advanced than other economies: China had a credit system, paper money, and all-around economic prosperity, perhaps more so during the Qing Dynasty than beforehand. India was not as sophisticated, but far richer than Europe. The Europeans, meanwhile, were roughly on a par with the Ottomans on land, technology-wise, anyway (until the 1700s or so).

In fact, just about the only area where Europeans conclusively lead was in naval technology. The Portuguese "Empire" was a string of outposts connected by sea routes who either pirated or extorted money from Asian shippers: their own merchant cargo was minimal in comparison. The Spanish Empire was more or less a giant mine for silver that would rather quickly make its way to other economies, either European or Asian.

There was no overwhelming tech lead until the Industrial Revolution, really.Certainly if a 16th C European army had invaded India or China they would have struggled in may ways, but it was the economic events of the 16-17th C that made the Industrial revolution possible. That is where all this is going. It was Europeans that after all supplied the guns and know how to Asia during the 16th C. No disagreement on the Porutguese.

Before anything else, I would like to disagree with the idea of putting economics and government types under "technology". The "civics" or how ever one might call them are a different sphere entirely. As for the rest, I still find a tech tree, as such, to be redundant.

IMHO rate of technological advances, as opposed to their implementation, should be left outside of the purvey of players for the most part and should occur as per the moderator's initiative, on the basis of an intelligent combination of a) OTL technological timeline (with some random fluctuations if you wish), b) nation stats and extra-stat factors (generally speaking urban, trading states would advance faster, though I am sure Disenfrancised would be able to elaborate on this), c) player initiative (but within reason; what I have in mind is more along the lines of, say, a ruler hiring alchemists to find some way to refine the gunpowder-making progress) and d) the general circumstances (warfare speeds up development of weaponry and things related to it, for a classical example. Unsuccessful naval expeditions tend to lead to improvements in ship-building even without player attention).

Generally speaking technological progress in pre-modern times is a question of need rather than will. This is best taken into account.So you feel that any advancement system should be informal and any structure that is there "hidden" from players. That was what I was asking about. Now to run this game I do need some organized way to map progress. I did not have one in BirdNES 2 beyond a very rudimentary plan. It made modding difficult and inconsistent at times.

While 'civics' may seem very separate from tech progress, I don't theink they really are. Civics is the framework in which change takes place. Where (with whom) the money and power resides in a government apparatus can have a big influence on how things get done and which things get done.

Birdjaguar
Nov 27, 2008, 01:18 PM
I honestly think the game would be better with a normal Earth map, but all of those arguments were already made.

Anyways, is there a limit of some sort to the sorts of non-nation roles that can be played? That is, a limit beyond realism, as that particular one is assumed.Yes i see limits to non nation roles. I am working on just how such roles would enter into play. The Pope is clearly a different kind of role and was proptotyped in BirdNES 1 as were pirates. Bankers, army brokers, and traders are the other three I'm thinking about. They could stay separate or endup being combined into a single "job".

ATM I see maybe 3-5 total players max in those roles (exluding pirates who would appear later in the game). The game doesn't need these, but I think that they might enrich play for Europeans and complicate global expansion in an interesting way. They would also provide a different experience for players who might not want to play a nation. Your thoughts are welcome.

North King
Nov 27, 2008, 01:35 PM
Certainly if a 16th C European army had invaded India or China they would have struggled in may ways, but it was the economic events of the 16-17th C that made the Industrial revolution possible. That is where all this is going. It was Europeans that after all supplied the guns and know how to Asia during the 16th C. No disagreement on the Porutguese.

And then within a century, the Japanese were making superior guns to anything that the Portuguese or Dutch had.

I have no qualms with the fact that the Europeans had superior military technology, especially in the naval sector. What I do object to is the characterization of Asian economies as solidified or somehow inferior to Europeans. Europe was a poor periphery until the 16th century; they were playing catchup until around 1700, when they finally began to surpass their rivals. A lot of this can be attributed to the resources of the Americas, Africa, imported slave labor, gold, and that sort of thing.

Even then, though, Asians weren't all that far behind in the economic sphere. China still probably led Europe in per capita income IIRC until the late 1700s, while the Mughals were richer by far than any European nation, or several of them put together.

The rise of Europe was as much a result of geographic accident, military coercion brilliant individuals, and sheer luck as of innate technological superiority, and it wasn't at all due to some sort of proto-Capitalist system that was in place (as I mentioned, China had similar institutions in place). I want that to be reflected somehow.

And any Europeans invading Asia in the 16th Century would have had a much worse time than simply "struggling in many ways"; they would have been outright defeated. Routed, really. It's only by the 17th century that they could hold their own, and the 18th century where they start showing definitive qualitative advantages.

Birdjaguar
Nov 27, 2008, 02:32 PM
And then within a century, the Japanese were making superior guns to anything that the Portuguese or Dutch had. and then what did they do?

I have no qualms with the fact that the Europeans had superior military technology, especially in the naval sector. What I do object to is the characterization of Asian economies as solidified or somehow inferior to Europeans. Europe was a poor periphery until the 16th century; they were playing catchup until around 1700, when they finally began to surpass their rivals. A lot of this can be attributed to the resources of the Americas, Africa, imported slave labor, gold, and that sort of thing.I never said inferior, just different. Certainly both China and India were far "richer" and more populous, but the IR did not happen in India or China. It happened in Europe largely because of what went on there in the 15-16th centuries.

Even then, though, Asians weren't all that far behind in the economic sphere. China still probably led Europe in per capita income IIRC until the late 1700s, while the Mughals were richer by far than any European nation, or several of them put together.

The rise of Europe was as much a result of geographic accident, military coercion brilliant individuals, and sheer luck as of innate technological superiority, and it wasn't at all due to some sort of proto-Capitalist system that was in place (as I mentioned, China had similar institutions in place). I want that to be reflected somehow.I disagree. Europe's poitical fragmentation (versus China's long standard of unity) fostered a freer market economy in which the money followed profit and locations where such endeavors were more favored. War and the preparartion for war became a profitable business not controlled by the government. That economic model and military expertise was exported via naval superiority. The European trading companies were all about profit and did what ever they had to to keep those profits flowing.

I don't expect we will agree, and this is probably not the place for too much more discussion on why Europe succeeded so well in its domination of Asia. My point in sum is that from a point of being behind in, say, 1400, Europe rose to a point of parity by 1470 and tech superiority over the next 250 years and the change did not suddenly happen, it was based on the events of the 1500s and 1600s. A big part of Europes success was because of China's abdication of the role of world leader and stopping further advances.

North King
Nov 27, 2008, 03:20 PM
and then what did they do?

They went into isolationism, which was not altogether a bad thing. Japan had a massively higher standard of living than any other nation in the world at that point, and was completely self-sufficient in both resources and luxuries. Not a bad deal, really.

I never said inferior, just different. Certainly both China and India were far "richer" and more populous, but the IR did not happen in India or China. It happened in Europe largely because of what went on there in the 15-16th centuries.

Why the quotes around richer? They were richer, no qualification necessary.

The Industrial Revolution happened in Europe due to a number of factors which could well have been triggered in China instead. NESes should reflect that and not some determinist, Eurocentric view.

I disagree. Europe's poitical fragmentation (versus China's long standard of unity) fostered a freer market economy in which the money followed profit and locations where such endeavors were more favored. War and the preparartion for war became a profitable business not controlled by the government. That economic model and military expertise was exported via naval superiority. The European trading companies were all about profit and did what ever they had to to keep those profits flowing.

That's a standard view, but doesn't bear up under scrutiny. Yes, Europe had all that, but so did China. The market economy, credit, money mobility -- they were all there. Moreover, Europe's political fragmentation might have encouraged technological advances in war, but not in economics. And more importantly, the fratricidal conflicts managed to completely drain them of manpower for most of the 17th century...

My point in sum is that from a point of being behind in, say, 1400, Europe rose to a point of parity by 1470 and tech superiority over the next 250 years and the change did not suddenly happen, it was based on the events of the 1500s and 1600s. A big part of Europes success was because of China's abdication of the role of world leader and stopping further advances.

I believe Europe was still behind late into the 1500s, and on a parity through the 1600s, except in certain military technologies.

China did not "abdicate" it's role as leader of the East Asians; it halted expensive treasure ship voyages into the Indian Ocean which were mostly focused on prestige. They focused internally, yes, but China internally was as rich and powerful as Europe combined, plus colonies. That wasn't exactly a bad trade-off. There were numerous problems, such as Japanese piracy and the occasional steppe resurgence, but it wasn't crippling by any means.

silver 2039
Nov 27, 2008, 03:34 PM
They went into isolationism, which was not altogether a bad thing. Japan had a massively higher standard of living than any other nation in the world at that point, and was completely self-sufficient in both resources and luxuries. Not a bad deal, really.They went into isolationism, which was not altogether a bad thing. Japan had a massively higher standard of living than any other nation in the world at that point, and was completely self-sufficient in both resources and luxuries. Not a bad deal, really.

They also had a massive presence in the trade in Asia-Pacific with their Red Seal Ships,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_seal_ships

Red seal ships (朱印船 Shuinsen) were Japanese armed merchant sailing ships bound for Southeast Asian ports with a red-sealed patent issued by the early Tokugawa shogunate in the first half of the 17th century. Between 1600 and 1635, more than 350 Japanese ships went overseas under this permit system.




Red Seal ships usually ranged in size between 500 and 750 tons, a size equal or superior to European galleons, but inferior to that of the massive Portuguese carracks, often over 1,000 tons.

The complement was about 200 people per ship (the average of the fifteen Red Seal ships for which the number of people is known, is 236).

The ships were built in various places. Some of them, built in Nagasaki, combined Western, Japanese and Chinese ship designs. Others were Chinese junks. And once the trade with Southeast Asia became well established, numerous ships were ordered and purchased in Ayutthaya in Siam, due to the excellence of the construction and the quality of Thai wood.

The ships were managed by rich trading families such as the Sumikura, Araki, Chaya and Sueyoshi, or by individual adventurers such as Suetsugo Heizo, Yamada Nagamasa, William Adams, Jan Joosten or Murayama Toan. The funds for the purchase of merchandise in Asia were loaned to the managers of the expedition for an interest of 35% to 55% per trip, going as high as 100% in the case of Siam.

They traveled all over China, Indo-China, Indonesia, India, Siam etc...and dwarfed European trade

The 350 Red Seal ships recorded between 1604 and 1634, averaging about 10 ships per year, have to be compared to the single Portuguese carrack visiting Nagasaki from Macau every year, although the carrack was large in tonnage (between 2 to 3 times a single Red Seal ship), and has a rich cargo of silk directly obtained from China.

Also in comparison, the English factory in Hirado only received four ships from England in the space of 10 years (during its existence between 1613 and 1623), with generally non-valuable cargo. To survive, the factory actually had to resort to trade between Japan and Southeast Asia under the Red Seal system, organizing seven expeditions, four of which were handled by William Adams.

In 1612, overall, Padre Valentim de Carvalho, head of the Jesuit mission, stated that the annual "Great Ship" from Macau brought 1,300 quintals of silk, whereas 5,000 quintals were brought in Red Seal ships and ships from China and Manila.

Birdjaguar
Nov 27, 2008, 04:26 PM
They went into isolationism, which was not altogether a bad thing. Japan had a massively higher standard of living than any other nation in the world at that point, and was completely self-sufficient in both resources and luxuries. Not a bad deal, really.
Japan's isolationism and China's turning inward both had big impacts on their roles in the 16-17th C.

Why the quotes around richer? They were richer, no qualification necessary.Because they were not just richer in money.

The Industrial Revolution happened in Europe due to a number of factors which could well have been triggered in China instead. NESes should reflect that and not some determinist, Eurocentric view.History is full of "could haves" and they are essentially worthless because they didn't. NESing is different. My whole idea behind the tech tree was to create a defined path for non European nations to join the IR earlier than historically. The posts so far would indicate that players would prefer a less structured approach in which there are fewer constraints on the pace of progress and who can partake easily.


That's a standard view, but doesn't bear up under scrutiny. Yes, Europe had all that, but so did China. The market economy, credit, money mobility -- they were all there. Moreover, Europe's political fragmentation might have encouraged technological advances in war, but not in economics. And more importantly, the fratricidal conflicts managed to completely drain them of manpower for most of the 17th century...While the pieces of the economies may have been similar, how they were put together and how they interacrted among themselves and with the government was entirely different. The superiority of the European system was not that it was a better system, but that it produced the IR before any other region. If one holds that the IR was not a social and economic advancement, then by all measures, Europe had an inferior sytem to the Chinese.


China did not "abdicate" it's role as leader of the East Asians; it halted expensive treasure ship voyages into the Indian Ocean which were mostly focused on prestige. They focused internally, yes, but China internally was as rich and powerful as Europe combined, plus colonies. That wasn't exactly a bad trade-off. There were numerous problems, such as Japanese piracy and the occasional steppe resurgence, but it wasn't crippling by any means.I refer you to the epilogue of Diamond's GGS for my answer to this. :)

Birdjaguar
Nov 27, 2008, 04:35 PM
Nice Silver. Thanks. The more input, the better things get.

North King
Nov 27, 2008, 04:53 PM
Japan's isolationism and China's turning inward both had big impacts on their roles in the 16-17th C.

And were not actually bad things in the long run. Only China really suffered because of them. Japan got forced to trade by American gunboats, but they were never conquered.

I think a lot of the thinking that they were "behind" somehow stems from their lack of colonies, which is eminently silly. Colonies were a drain on resources for the most part, and the fact that they didn't go off colonizing just shows that they were content with what they had and didn't need more.

History is full of "could haves" and they are essentially worthless because they didn't.

BS. The "what if?"s of history help illustrate historical episodes and give them much more depth. Professional historians use them all the time. To call them worthless is really not at all valid.

NESing is different. My whole idea behind the tech tree was to create a defined path for non European nations to join the IR earlier than historically. The posts so far would indicate that players would prefer a less structured approach in which there are fewer constraints on the pace of progress and who can partake easily.

See, that's the problem. That supposition that Europe was inevitably going to start the Industrial Revolution and that other nations had to "catch up". That was only true by 1700, it certainly wasn't true in 1600, and it would be a blatant lie in the time period you're setting your NES in.

While the pieces of the economies may have been similar, how they were put together and how they interacrted among themselves and with the government was entirely different. The superiority of the European system was not that it was a better system, but that it produced the IR before any other region. If one holds that the IR was not a social and economic advancement, then by all measures, Europe had an inferior sytem to the Chinese.

Which was largely a matter of luck.

I refer you to the epilogue of Diamond's GGS for my answer to this. :)

And I refer you to the fact that China was more prosperous for the vast majority of its history. Sure, the Industrial Revolution happened in Europe, but it's insane to base all historical understanding on one event.

Symphony D.
Nov 27, 2008, 05:24 PM
They went into isolationism, which was not altogether a bad thing. Japan had a massively higher standard of living than any other nation in the world at that point, and was completely self-sufficient in both resources and luxuries. Not a bad deal, really.
Intrude: If you assume zero growth and the fact that rice production wasn't causing a population boom, which it was, then yes, I suppose that's a true statement.

I think a lot of the thinking that they were "behind" somehow stems from their lack of colonies, which is eminently silly. Colonies were a drain on resources for the most part, and the fact that they didn't go off colonizing just shows that they were content with what they had and didn't need more.
Japan also banned guns and developing technologies, foreign traders except for the Dutch (and immigrants except for the Koreans), and had an extreme paucity of natural resources in virtually all fields, from iron ore to oil to wood (the fact Japan was not totally deforested was only due to strict woodlands management after the problem came to be recognized). Their economy and military was backwards and their industrial base was anemic and antiquated--hence the entire need for the Meiji Restoration. They succeeded in building up their economy in a remarkably short time to Western standards, however as you yourself have demonstrated, that would not necessarily have been the only outcome. To argue that Japan had parity with the colonial powers before then becomes a more and more ridiculous statement as you go forward in time toward that event.

In 1492 itself, the Sengoku Jidai is in its relatively early stages and there is frankly absolutely nothing ensuring Japan will go on the course it only assumed after the Japanese-Korean War under Tokugawa. It entirely depends on who resolves the civil war and unites the country, and how, and that matter itself will take about 50 years to come to a head even with alt-historical divergences. Nobunaga's import of muskets and Portuguese tactics is a pretty clear sign that Japan wasn't isolated in the 15th-16th centuries and was in fact basically a semi-anarchic state. The Japan we were discussing is from 1603 on. The real Japan you have to deal with here is 1467-1603, which is an entirely different animal.

Disenfrancised
Nov 27, 2008, 05:55 PM
And then within a century, the Japanese were making superior guns to anything that the Portuguese or Dutch had.

I have no qualms with the fact that the Europeans had superior military technology, especially in the naval sector. What I do object to is the characterization of Asian economies as solidified or somehow inferior to Europeans. Europe was a poor periphery until the 16th century; they were playing catchup until around 1700, when they finally began to surpass their rivals. A lot of this can be attributed to the resources of the Americas, Africa, imported slave labor, gold, and that sort of thing.


They were poor societies, but more productive per-capita post 1400 due to various factors like the different agriculture package, climate, and systems of government. Europe could industrialise earlier thanks to its cheap sources of energy, and its ability to substitue land and capital for labour in agriculture in ways that were structurally impossible in the Asian set ups.

Then you have constant military conflict between national states and the much closer relationship with the government possible in the small militant european states enabling the european governments to skim off 15-20% of the nations production whilst the Chinese almost never went above 10% taxation rate, enabling infrastructural, military improvements and giving finance greater strength.

IMO yes China could have industrialised but it is of a lower probability due to the above factors and a much reduced need compared to Europe.


Even then, though, Asians weren't all that far behind in the economic sphere. China still probably led Europe in per capita income IIRC until the late 1700s, while the Mughals were richer by far than any European nation, or several of them put together.


I disagree on the per-capita. The Mughals were much richer, due to being larger and more populous than Europe put together.


The rise of Europe was as much a result of geographic accident, military coercion brilliant individuals, and sheer luck as of innate technological superiority, and it wasn't at all due to some sort of proto-Capitalist system that was in place (as I mentioned, China had similar institutions in place). I want that to be reflected somehow.

All the geographic factors are still in place, plus the ones that make Europe a much better place to develop high productivity systems in than other dense populations centres. Plus the political factors that spurred development after the 14th century. I still think its more likely for European centres to develop (of course not necessarily the ones that did in the OTL) with greater ease than Asian ones.

And any Europeans invading Asia in the 16th Century would have had a much worse time than simply "struggling in many ways"; they would have been outright defeated. Routed, really. It's only by the 17th century that they could hold their own, and the 18th century where they start showing definitive qualitative advantages.

Oh I definately agree :).

Of course this the presumes the Europeans would be so out and out stupid as to directly attack, rather than play people off each other, run protection rackets and piracy, and use the fact that they can reach Asia while Asia can't reach them to get some pocket money.

Edit: Maybe I shouldn't take so long to write replies :lol:

North King
Nov 27, 2008, 06:01 PM
If you assume zero growth and the fact that rice production wasn't causing a population boom, which it was, then yes, I suppose that's a true statement.

It managed to feed its population, grow more or less every major cash crop on the Islands themselves without having to go overseas to obtain them, and managed to maintain independence despite various other powers knocking at the door. I'd say they did pretty well for themselves.

Japan also banned guns and developing technologies, foreign traders except for the Dutch (and immigrants except for the Koreans), and had an extreme paucity of natural resources in virtually all fields, from iron ore to oil to wood (the fact Japan was not totally deforested was only due to strict woodlands management after the problem came to be recognized).

Their economy and military was backwards and their industrial base was anemic and antiquated--hence the entire need for the Meiji Restoration. They succeeded in building up their economy in a remarkably short time to Western standards, however as you yourself have demonstrated, that would not necessarily have been the only outcome. To argue that Japan had parity with the colonial powers before then becomes a more and more ridiculous statement as you go forward in time toward that event.

In 1492 itself, the Sengoku Jidai is in its relatively early stages and there is frankly absolutely nothing ensuring Japan will go on the course it only assumed after the Japanese-Korean War under Tokugawa. It entirely depends on who resolves the civil war and unites the country, and how, and that matter itself will take about 50 years to come to a head even with alt-historical divergences. Nobunaga's import of muskets and Portuguese tactics is a pretty clear sign that Japan wasn't isolated in the 15th-16th centuries and was in fact basically a semi-anarchic state. The Japan we were discussing is from 1603 on. The real Japan you have to deal with here is 1467-1603, which is an entirely different animal.

All of the problems you mention are solved eventually, which is the point I was making. No one's arguing that Japan's necessarily doing well during the time period. I'm arguing that it's on a parity, which is actually a rather low standard, especially given that Europe was at the time tearing itself to pieces bit by bloody bit.

Moreover, as the problems were indeed solved eventually (mostly through far-sighted government interventionism and massive silver mining), we can see that Japan did indeed have the potential to match European powers. This is what I've been arguing with Bird: potential.

North King
Nov 27, 2008, 06:08 PM
They were poor societies, but more productive per-capita post 1400 due to various factors like the different agriculture package, climate, and systems of government. Europe could industrialise earlier thanks to its cheap sources of energy, and its ability to substitue land and capital for labour in agriculture in ways that were structurally impossible in the Asian set ups.

These are better arguments. However, I would dispute that rice as a food source necessarily leads to a perpetually pre-industrial economy; the fact is that China had such a huge population that they could afford to leave much of their population as peasantry and still create a nice merchant class.

As for cheap energy sources: maybe I'm missing something, but China has a hell of a lot of coal... :confused:

Then you have constant military conflict between national states and the much closer relationship with the government possible in the small militant european states enabling the european governments to skim off 15-20% of the nations production whilst the Chinese almost never went above 10% taxation rate, enabling infrastructural, military improvements and giving finance greater strength.

I would agree with the military improvements, but the evidence I've seen is that comparative peace allowed China the time and money to make much better infrastructural improvements, while their finance was on a comparable level until nearly the Enlightenment.

IMO yes China could have industrialised but it is of a lower probability due to the above factors and a much reduced need compared to Europe.

The need is indeed a big factor in why China didn't industrialize early, but it doesn't really preclude fast development. I would agree that Europe is more likely to industrialize, but not overwhelmingly so.

I disagree on the per-capita. The Mughals were much richer, due to being larger and more populous than Europe put together.

I said the Mughals were richer. We agree, then. :p

All the geographic factors are still in place, plus the ones that make Europe a much better place to develop high productivity systems in than other dense populations centres. Plus the political factors that spurred development after the 14th century. I still think its more likely for European centres to develop (of course not necessarily the ones that did in the OTL) with greater ease than Asian ones.

This is true.

Of course this the presumes the Europeans would be so out and out stupid as to directly attack, rather than play people off each other, run protection rackets and piracy, and use the fact that they can reach Asia while Asia can't reach them to get some pocket money.

We're talking about NESers here... :p

Symphony D.
Nov 27, 2008, 06:13 PM
It managed to feed its population, grow more or less every major cash crop on the Islands themselves without having to go overseas to obtain them, and managed to maintain independence despite various other powers knocking at the door. I'd say they did pretty well for themselves.
Intrude: After the Sengoku Jidai, it managed to avoid being noticed. That is also 110 years after the period in question and frought with the same dangerous stagnation and willful backwardness I described, and they were only raised from such malaise by the visible shock of Western military supremacy. Though you could say that's neither here nor there for the first reason--it comes much later. Let us shelve Japan's later complacency and turn to the matter at hand since we can both agree it can wind up in at least a stable situation after the fact.

All of the problems you mention are solved eventually, which is the point I was making. No one's arguing that Japan's necessarily doing well during the time period. I'm arguing that it's on a parity, which is actually a rather low standard, especially given that Europe was at the time tearing itself to pieces bit by bloody bit.
It's in a 130 year civil war with a complete breakdown of government and military order, a large breakdown in social and class order (ronin, gekokujo, etc), routine economic and ecological devastation (war, famine, disease, deforestation, etc) to the point where entire philosophical schools of Buddhism are built around the idea that you have to go to another plane of existence entirely to ascend because the world is so polluted, and you're telling me it has parity with Europe? It might achieve parity later with Europe, but not for, if the historical record is any indication, 52 turns, assuming five years per turn. With a week per turn in real life, that's a real-time year.

Moreover, as the problems were indeed solved eventually (mostly through far-sighted government interventionism and massive silver mining), we can see that Japan did indeed have the potential to match European powers. This is what I've been arguing with Bird: potential.
Potential much later. That the war ended when it did is mostly by the grace and skill of the sequential-triumvirate of Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa. There is again very little ensuring they or ones like them arise other than statistical probability for some given time. In fact you could say Japan was relatively lucky with what it got. To believe it would get luckier is possible... but highly unlikely.

Birdjaguar
Nov 27, 2008, 08:52 PM
BS. The "what if?"s of history help illustrate historical episodes and give them much more depth. Professional historians use them all the time. To call them worthless is really not at all valid.I enjoy a good "what if" as much as you, but I see them as separate from history. They are an indulgence of our imagination and a tool to challenge our thinking, but I don't see any real contribution to our understanding of did happen. "If China had had an IR, how would the world have been different?" is not the same question as "Why didn't China have an IR?"


See, that's the problem. That supposition that Europe was inevitably going to start the Industrial Revolution and that other nations had to "catch up". That was only true by 1700, it certainly wasn't true in 1600, and it would be a blatant lie in the time period you're setting your NES in.

Which was largely a matter of luck.I don't think luck had anything to do with it. And I presuppose that the IR will happen, because it actually did. The IR did not begin in the 1700s, it only manifested then after 200 years of pre IR effort and change. In a game though, that is not necessarily going to happen. See Spain in BirdNES 1 for an example of how players are free to change history. ;) In a game, Ihave to be prepared that history will unfold as it did in reality and at the same time be prepared to allow players to change that script. My whole tech tree was a way for me to organize the steps to both recreate history and to create a path for history to be written differently.

If this were an alt history thread and you wanted to change when and where the IR took place, what would the POD be? Would it be in 1675 or 1700? or would you have to go further back? You might have to go back prior to 1450 and keep the Ottoman Turks from becoming a Middle Eastern power.



And I refer you to the fact that China was more prosperous for the vast majority of its history. Sure, the Industrial Revolution happened in Europe, but it's insane to base all historical understanding on one event.I'm not basing all modern history understanding on a single event. If you had to pick the five most important events of world history in the past 1000 years, what would they be?

Masada
Nov 28, 2008, 01:21 AM
Why are we even talking about per-capita wealth here? Its like arguing that on average my mud brick house is slightly better than on average your mud and brick house, it's largely irrelevant. Now per-capita productivity is a better measure, but even then its fairly meaningless, because you are talking about almost irrelevant gains. I'm not going to mention the error margin on those measurements either... :p

The rise of Europe was as much a result of geographic accident, military coercion brilliant individuals, and sheer luck as of innate technological superiority, and it wasn't at all due to some sort of proto-Capitalist system that was in place (as I mentioned, China had similar institutions in place). I want that to be reflected somehow.
I'll grant you that China had similar institutions, however the focus was slightly different. The financial sector was different big scale privately sourced funding of projects almost never happened in China, it did in Europe. By contrast the Chinese system serviced more people, and served a far broader socio-economic base, Europe aside from the Dutch did not. It's quite possible that this did provide a significant disadvantage, China never came up with a bond's system, or a significantly developed insurance system [not talking institutionally here, more the mathematical and practical side] nor did they have quite the same high returns games that Europe did investments in China yielded on average significantly lower than Europe] but then for a long period nobody in Europe a couple of curve beaters aside had those institutions in place or requisite technical knowledge. Property rights in China were broadly similar, I don't think they provided a significant difference. Market wise China was fractured [geography], national unity notwithstanding, Europe was probably more so though.

Even then, though, Asians weren't all that far behind in the economic sphere. China still probably led Europe in per capita income IIRC until the late 1700s, while the Mughals were richer by far than any European nation, or several of them put together.
Granted, but per capita income doesn't really matter all that much, not when your still locked in by Malthus and still reduced to comparing similarly dingy huts. I'll also grant that the Mughals were richer by far, but since when did wealth count all that much? A certain lack of critical infrastructure, and of requisite institutions really made that wealth inert.

I disagree. Europe's poitical fragmentation (versus China's long standard of unity) fostered a freer market economy in which the money followed profit and locations where such endeavors were more favored. War and the preparartion for war became a profitable business not controlled by the government. That economic model and military expertise was exported via naval superiority. The European trading companies were all about profit and did what ever they had to to keep those profits flowing.

I doubt Europe's fragmentation fostered a freer market, you still end up with all the nice things that European nations prohibited and regulated, the French calico laws, the British corn laws, etc. Europe was more restrictive, protectionist, mercantilist and regulated that China could ever have aspired to be. If anything it led to a separation and decoupling of more than a few European nations from the international trade market, sure it had good results, but those were not the result of free market capitalism per say.

The market economy, credit, money mobility -- they were all there

Correct but they were focused differently.

That supposition that Europe was inevitably going to start the Industrial Revolution and that other nations had to "catch up". That was only true by 1700, it certainly wasn't true in 1600, and it would be a blatant lie in the time period you're setting your NES in.

I tend to agree, Europe's domination over Asia was more of a series of historical accidents than anything inherently better.

Birdjaguar
Nov 28, 2008, 12:25 PM
I would love to join! But I have some problems with some of the things brought up.

I'll bring other stuff up when they come up ;)Time to speak up and be heard.

Disenfrancised
Nov 28, 2008, 02:11 PM
As for cheap energy sources: maybe I'm missing something, but China has a hell of a lot of coal... :confused:


It does have huuuge deposits, deposits that are of generally of lower grade, further from the coast and population centres, and much harder to access than the European deposits that the early IR used (India is even worse off with regard to early accessibility, though a very different politcal/demographic set up could change this it needed much earlier PoD).

But before the coal stage is even reached, China doesn't have the lots of quick growing forests and fast following streams next to the coastal population centres that provided the energy sources allowed europe to get to a stage where coal looks like a good idea - the development will be slower due to greater transport costs.

As to the better agricultural productivity gives more advantage than it seems due to transport and concentration of gains - if you have a city at the centre of a circular 'feeding' region with a 10000 farms, each which gives 0.5 extra persons worth of food allowing a city population of 5000 and thanks to wealth making interactions an output of 5500 (x^1.1 as an illustrative handwave), a 10% increase in land productivity will allow a city of 5500 with a wealth output of 6050.

Plus IMO europe had better than 10% greater productivity per capita; the 200k strong city of london was supported by the produce of a mere 5 million people in 1600, whilst China took the Grand Canal to feed only 4 times that number in Beijing.

The Strategos
Nov 29, 2008, 09:53 AM
Yes, I hope to expand his [the Pope's] role and influences. Your ideas on what to include are welcome.


The natural place to begin is in the life of Pope Alexander VI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI), who was elected at roughly the same time the NES starts in the conclave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_conclave,_1492)starting on August 6th (the conclave itself is instructive on the position of pope at this time; note especially the allegations of simony).

As you can see from these two examples, the sale/gift of bishoprics, abbeys, castles, other church lands (and more importantly their income), and indulgences (especially in jubilee years from pilgrims); the appointment of cardinalship (see for example how in the Italian wars he managed to conduct an alliance with France in exchange for the bishop of Saint-Malo becoming a cardinal); and confiscation of enemy wealth were main sources of income and power for the Popes at this time, and also the main source of contention with outside powers. It was the disposition of church lands, for example, that brought conflict with Ferdinand I of Naples (which later helped to lead to the Italian Wars).

The spiritual authority of the pope was acknowledged only when it benefited the parties to acknowledge it (see for example, Spain’s acceptance in order for favorable terms in the Bulls of Donation, the French concessions in order to obtain a marriage annulment for the king, or my personal favorite papal tactic of all time, the multiple calls for crusades which were given in order to mask the mobilization and march of armies fighting in the Italian Wars, compared to Ferdinand’s continued support of Cardinal della Rovere even after Alexander’s election).

Birdjaguar
Nov 29, 2008, 11:51 AM
Nice links and very interesting. Given all that how can we incorparate such intrigues into a game? Certainly the Pope needs sources of income and the ability to manage armies., but he also needs a reservoir of power to wield over the other players ho will be kings and such. The power has be real (in game terms) so as not to be completely ignored. I've planned to vaguely model "church lands" that will have some value as income and be suitable for confiscation or gifting. Perhaps a way is needed to "punish" defiance of papal authority either through instability, national confidence, economic weakening or loss of support from nobles. The Popes of the time did have clout with kings that in game terms is difficult to mimmick because players do not have loyalties tot he church.

Now, maybe loyalty to the church could be tracked in some fashion that in the end can lead to a nation slipping into protestantism. i am open to ideas in all this especially if there is a way to have political loyalty by important groups (nobles, generals, land owners, etc.) be similarly tracked. That way a single method could be used differently in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

qoou
Nov 29, 2008, 12:46 PM
I unfortunately cannot access the forums on weekdays (boarding school + internet blocks), but I am still interested in BirdNES 3. Could I still take a non-nation role?

Birdjaguar
Nov 29, 2008, 01:03 PM
I unfortunately cannot access the forums on weekdays (boarding school + internet blocks), but I am still interested in BirdNES 3. Could I still take a non-nation role?This is only a discussion thread about some of the ideas I have for the game. It is not a reservation thread and no list of nations has been decided or posted. You thoughts on any of the ideas posted are welcome, as well as, any new ideas you might have.

I do not anticipate this game actually starting until Jan-Feb 2009.

The Strategos
Nov 29, 2008, 06:13 PM
Nice links and very interesting. Given all that how can we incorporate such intrigues into a game? Certainly the Pope needs sources of income and the ability to manage armies., but he also needs a reservoir of power to wield over the other players ho will be kings and such. The power has be real (in game terms) so as not to be completely ignored. I've planned to vaguely model "church lands" that will have some value as income and be suitable for confiscation or gifting. Perhaps a way is needed to "punish" defiance of papal authority either through instability, national confidence, economic weakening or loss of support from nobles. The Popes of the time did have clout with kings that in game terms is difficult to mimic because players do not have loyalties tot he church.

Now, maybe loyalty to the church could be tracked in some fashion that in the end can lead to a nation slipping into Protestantism. I am open to ideas in all this especially if there is a way to have political loyalty by important groups (nobles, generals, land owners, etc.) be similarly tracked. That way a single method could be used differently in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

Well it might be helpful to say exactly what the Pope’s powers are, and how they affected things historically. Using that as a basis, it could then be brainstormed how to represent these things in a game. A non-exhaustive list would include:

1) Excommunication: An act whereby someone is banned from participating in the sacraments, except for the sacrament of reconciliation, or participating in the liturgy in a ministerial capacity. In some cases, though not always, absolves subjects from obeying ruler excommunicated (such as in Regnans in Excelsis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnans_in_Excelsis)).
2) Interdict: An act whereby the church suspends all public worship and withdraws the church’s sacraments in an entire area, such as a city or country.
3) Appoint of church officials: A source of money if the offices are sold, also a source of political power in some parts of Europe as certain church offices overlapped with secular offices and powers.
4) Papal Bulls: Formal public communication. Countries listened to the bull as they wished, for example, the bull Inter caetera was virtually ignored by France and England.
5) Give annulments and divorces: A fairly powerful tool in some instances, as if a wife was barren, only an official annulment/divorce would allow for a sovereign to remarry and thus produce an heir.
6) Rights as secular ruler over Papal States
7) Prerogative to crown Holy Roman Emperor
8) Sole authority to announce a crusade
9) Right to establish and dissolve religious order, and in some cases had sole oversight over religious order
10) Oversees church finances


So in a NES when the Pope says A and King of France opposes, what choices should the Pope have to enforce his will? Basically, I see two ways: promise of gain or threat of punishment. The promise of gain would include 3, 4 (in some instance such as Inter caetera), 5, 10, and perhaps in certain cases 8 and 9. The threat of punishment would be 1, 2, 6 (military force), and in some cases 4.

Under promise of gain, 5 should be ignored, for as much as I would like seeing it, it is unlikely that NESes will have that kind of detail where marriage and annulments would have a big effect. 4, 8, 9, and 10 are in minimal ways already built into most NESes. That leaves 3 as the most logical expansion for Papal powers in NESes, though again, it might be too much detail for most NESes to handle.

Under threats 6 is already in most NESes, which leaves 1, 2, and 4. Historically 4 has been the weakest threat, see, for example the papal bull Scimus Fili, which condemned the 1296 English invasion of Scotland, and which had no impact in England (though perhaps one could argue in strengthened resistance in Scotland and made France more willing to intervene). Thus the question becomes, if 1 or 2 are actually carried out, what its affects should be. Effects that fall outside the moderator’s purview would include an increased likelihood of foreign intervention (such as the Spanish Armada as a result of Regnans in Excelsis, though on the opposite side, see the French King Philippe II’s unwillingness to act against the previously excommunicated Catharism nobles until a crusade was called). Effects that fall inside the moderator’s purview would include an increased likelihood of dissident groups to increase their dissidence. For example, when the Holy Roman Emperor Gregory VII was excommunicated the German aristocracy launched a rebellion (though the fact that they were already dissident is shown by their second rebellion, the Great Saxon Revolt, which started after the excommunication of Gregory VII had been lifted). On the opposite side, Elizabeth of England, when she was excommunicated, acted so harshly to squash potential traitors, that those dissident groups that would theoretically increase their dissidence were already dead, in prison, or exiled. In my opinion, then, it is not that there is a rule “upon excommunication dissidence will rise x%” but rather “upon excommunication pre-existing rivals and dissident groups will take advantage of the excommunication in order to increase in strength, and perhaps act.”

Birdjaguar
Nov 29, 2008, 06:30 PM
Thanks, I will mull this over and try to boil it down to game terms and then post.

qoou
Nov 30, 2008, 02:48 PM
This is only a discussion thread about some of the ideas I have for the game. It is not a reservation thread and no list of nations has been decided or posted. You thoughts on any of the ideas posted are welcome, as well as, any new ideas you might have.

I do not anticipate this game actually starting until Jan-Feb 2009.

Sorry, I just wanted to make sure if I could eventually join (since having to check your e-mail rather than your PM box for my orders, etc could be quite a hassle), and I didn't have time to be particularly constructive that day.

In my opinion, making sure that your reworking of the world won't cause strange wind currents will be extremely hard. For example, if your reworking of Southern Africa causes wind currents in West Africa to allow, rather than prohibit, maritime trade, we could see a very different West Africa, North Africa, and even Iberia (the one in Europe, not the one in the Caucasus). Also, messing with the Polynesians' geography could produce interesting results in Madagascar and the Pacific. (sorry, I once again seem to be too short on time)

Birdjaguar
Nov 30, 2008, 10:56 PM
Well it might be helpful to say exactly what the Pope’s powers are, and how they affected things historically. Using that as a basis, it could then be brainstormed how to represent these things in a game. A non-exhaustive list would include:

1) Excommunication: An act whereby someone is banned from participating in the sacraments, except for the sacrament of reconciliation, or participating in the liturgy in a ministerial capacity. In some cases, though not always, absolves subjects from obeying ruler excommunicated (such as in Regnans in Excelsis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnans_in_Excelsis)).
2) Interdict: An act whereby the church suspends all public worship and withdraws the church’s sacraments in an entire area, such as a city or country.
3) Appoint of church officials: A source of money if the offices are sold, also a source of political power in some parts of Europe as certain church offices overlapped with secular offices and powers.
4) Papal Bulls: Formal public communication. Countries listened to the bull as they wished, for example, the bull Inter caetera was virtually ignored by France and England.
5) Give annulments and divorces: A fairly powerful tool in some instances, as if a wife was barren, only an official annulment/divorce would allow for a sovereign to remarry and thus produce an heir.
6) Rights as secular ruler over Papal States
7) Prerogative to crown Holy Roman Emperor
8) Sole authority to announce a crusade
9) Right to establish and dissolve religious order, and in some cases had sole oversight over religious order
10) Oversees church finances


So in a NES when the Pope says A and King of France opposes, what choices should the Pope have to enforce his will? Basically, I see two ways: promise of gain or threat of punishment. The promise of gain would include 3, 4 (in some instance such as Inter caetera), 5, 10, and perhaps in certain cases 8 and 9. The threat of punishment would be 1, 2, 6 (military force), and in some cases 4.

Under promise of gain, 5 should be ignored, for as much as I would like seeing it, it is unlikely that NESes will have that kind of detail where marriage and annulments would have a big effect. 4, 8, 9, and 10 are in minimal ways already built into most NESes. That leaves 3 as the most logical expansion for Papal powers in NESes, though again, it might be too much detail for most NESes to handle.

Under threats 6 is already in most NESes, which leaves 1, 2, and 4. Historically 4 has been the weakest threat, see, for example the papal bull Scimus Fili, which condemned the 1296 English invasion of Scotland, and which had no impact in England (though perhaps one could argue in strengthened resistance in Scotland and made France more willing to intervene). Thus the question becomes, if 1 or 2 are actually carried out, what its affects should be. Effects that fall outside the moderator’s purview would include an increased likelihood of foreign intervention (such as the Spanish Armada as a result of Regnans in Excelsis, though on the opposite side, see the French King Philippe II’s unwillingness to act against the previously excommunicated Catharism nobles until a crusade was called). Effects that fall inside the moderator’s purview would include an increased likelihood of dissident groups to increase their dissidence. For example, when the Holy Roman Emperor Gregory VII was excommunicated the German aristocracy launched a rebellion (though the fact that they were already dissident is shown by their second rebellion, the Great Saxon Revolt, which started after the excommunication of Gregory VII had been lifted). On the opposite side, Elizabeth of England, when she was excommunicated, acted so harshly to squash potential traitors, that those dissident groups that would theoretically increase their dissidence were already dead, in prison, or exiled. In my opinion, then, it is not that there is a rule “upon excommunication dissidence will rise x%” but rather “upon excommunication pre-existing rivals and dissident groups will take advantage of the excommunication in order to increase in strength, and perhaps act.”I like your ideas and have a first pass at working them into the rules.

I see the Pope being able to influence kings with money and perhaps lands and the ability to call for crusades. Now if the Pope asks and a catholic king refuses I’m thinking that such refusal might affect one or more sliding scales that show the likelihood of internal problems: political dissent, religious dissent and peasant unrest. In addition, should a Pope excommunicate a king, then, perhaps he would call a crusade against said king forcing other kings to go to war against the heretic. If they don’t, then trouble would spread and well….

The dissent scales would also work outside of Europe where political factions or peasants often caused problems for rulers. In India, the Hindu-Muslim conflict could be tracked too. Of course, those same scales could be influenced by other forces or other nation's gold.

Each scale might run from 0 to 10 with a score less than 2 or 3 meaning revolution or coup d'etat is in the air.

Your thoughts? Ideas? Improvements?

das
Dec 01, 2008, 01:36 AM
Now if the Pope asks and a catholic king refuses I’m thinking that such refusal might affect one or more sliding scales that show the likelihood of internal problems: political dissent, religious dissent and peasant unrest.

I think the Strategos put it better: it would indeed lead to the activisation of extant dissent rather than rise in general dissent, though the latter will likely also occur (especially among the clergy; the peasants are usually removed from such matters except in times of crisis when they too are eager to find a cause). For example: the King of France has been cautiously and gradually setting up a centralised state and curbing the privileges of the nobles. The nobles are not happy but are forced to make compromises. If the king is excommunicated, the nobles get a very good cause to launch a coup d'etat or at least a rebellion, and probably would at least try to do so. Foreign enemies also get a nice excuse, ofcourse.

In general, this is something I really hope to implement in IANES, but would also like to see more of in general: internal political struggles and balancing acts. Peasant revolts are fun, ofcourse, but what really makes Oriental Despoties for me is the ruthless court intrigues. One of the reasons South-East Asia has never been as powerful in real life as it can be in NESes is that it consists of basic political units that revolve around certain natural political and court centers; therefore any empire-builders there will inevitably have to deal with a very strong regional elite in every sufficiently distant province (nothing impossible, I should think, but a challenge nevertheless). China got eunuchs and mandarins (why didn't anyone ever make a game named Eunuchs and Mandarins? It sounds perfect to me :p ).

I strongly approve of the scale (I intend to use a similar five-level system with various demographic, economic, cultural and political effects assigned to each level of Stability).

Birdjaguar
Dec 02, 2008, 07:38 PM
I think the Strategos put it better: it would indeed lead to the activisation of extant dissent rather than rise in general dissent, though the latter will likely also occur (especially among the clergy; the peasants are usually removed from such matters except in times of crisis when they too are eager to find a cause). For example: the King of France has been cautiously and gradually setting up a centralised state and curbing the privileges of the nobles. The nobles are not happy but are forced to make compromises. If the king is excommunicated, the nobles get a very good cause to launch a coup d'etat or at least a rebellion, and probably would at least try to do so. Foreign enemies also get a nice excuse, ofcourse.

In general, this is something I really hope to implement in IANES, but would also like to see more of in general: internal political struggles and balancing acts. Peasant revolts are fun, ofcourse, but what really makes Oriental Despoties for me is the ruthless court intrigues. One of the reasons South-East Asia has never been as powerful in real life as it can be in NESes is that it consists of basic political units that revolve around certain natural political and court centers; therefore any empire-builders there will inevitably have to deal with a very strong regional elite in every sufficiently distant province (nothing impossible, I should think, but a challenge nevertheless). China got eunuchs and mandarins (why didn't anyone ever make a game named Eunuchs and Mandarins? It sounds perfect to me :p ).

I strongly approve of the scale (I intend to use a similar five-level system with various demographic, economic, cultural and political effects assigned to each level of Stability).I like the idea of internal intrigues too, but as a mod, if you have 25 players and half of them have some internal "goings on" each turn, then you really have 12 more NPC players to keep track of and which players expect some action. I find that a significant burden to do well. I would like to find a way to handle this better.

None the less, I think trying to track internal dissent its important, especially in an age like 1500 AD. A list of likely "opposition" groups for nations/rregions would be nice have. (hint hint)

With a numeric scale, it is pretty easy to tie policy and spending to effect changes in the level of discontent of several groups. I think you need some kind of generic peasant scale and probably a religious one too. The nobles, mandarins, & eunuchs, however, should be a bit more customized for the location or country. Of course you realize that now we have three NPCs per nation.:crazyeye:

All of this ties right back to exactly what kind of government a nation has and its characteristics. And that is another can of worms. :mischief:

das
Dec 03, 2008, 07:23 AM
They don't have to be NPCs as such; it's just that, when stability scales call for a rebellion and/or another player tries to jump in as that, he would have to court the support of different segments of society. Ofcourse, ideally there should be at least two NPCs per country (the two-party system is a natural for both court intrigues and parliamentary struggles, even if de jure there is just one party or there is a multitude; often but not quite always you have the Content Elites and the Disgruntled Elites, and their various supporters; naturally, they can change places somewhat often and there can be new elites outside of the system, in which case strange things happen as one extant party could defect to that elite or alternatively a common front could be created between enemies)

Birdjaguar
Dec 03, 2008, 09:51 PM
They don't have to be NPCs as such; it's just that, when stability scales call for a rebellion and/or another player tries to jump in as that, he would have to court the support of different segments of society. Ofcourse, ideally there should be at least two NPCs per country (the two-party system is a natural for both court intrigues and parliamentary struggles, even if de jure there is just one party or there is a multitude; often but not quite always you have the Content Elites and the Disgruntled Elites, and their various supporters; naturally, they can change places somewhat often and there can be new elites outside of the system, in which case strange things happen as one extant party could defect to that elite or alternatively a common front could be created between enemies)

So games terms, if the type of government was established and the nature of the opposition parties determined we could have scales like this:

China might have:
Eunuchs: Rebellious 0-1-2-3-4-5 Loyal
Mandarins: Rebellious 0-1-2-3-4-5 Loyal
Generals: Rebellious 0-1-2-3-4-5 Loyal
Peasants: Rebellious 0-1-2-3-4-5 Loyal

France:
Nobility: Rebellious 0-1-2-3-4-5 Loyal
Religious Leaders: Rebellious 0-1-2-3-4-5 Loyal
Peasants: Rebellious 0-1-2-3-4-5 Loyal

Perhaps other factions would be needed and each nation could have their own.

das
Dec 04, 2008, 01:48 AM
That is pretty much it; might also need to point out which elite group currently holds the most sway in the government. Thankfully, there are some basic similarities, especially within regions.

Birdjaguar
Dec 04, 2008, 10:16 PM
So what groups would be important to include in the world of 1500 AD?

England
Scotland
Denmark
Poland
Germany (HRE)
Italy
Spain
Ottoman Empire
Russia
Mughals
SE Asia
Japan
etc.

sp1023
Dec 08, 2008, 06:41 PM
Well, Sheep's running an NES about the same time... Persia?

Oh, portugal, definitely!

Birdjaguar
Dec 08, 2008, 06:50 PM
Well, Sheep's running an NES about the same time... Persia?

Oh, portugal, definitely!Is Sheep really running a NES in this time frame? Maybe I should take look at it. :mischief:

BTW, the list in the previous post was not a nation list, but one realted to regioinal types of government systems. Persia could be added, but Portuagal would probably be smilar to Span and France.

sp1023
Dec 09, 2008, 09:40 AM
Sheep's is 1530s while yours is in 1500.

Birdjaguar
Dec 09, 2008, 06:17 PM
Sheep's is 1530s while yours is in 1500.
Ah dear boy, if you hadn't noticed, I am playing in Sheep's game...hence the :mischief: in my post. ;)

silver 2039
Dec 09, 2008, 06:23 PM
I propose we keep this on permanent standby when involved in any conversation with sp.

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4914/masterobviousvijy1pf0.jpg

Birdjaguar
Dec 12, 2008, 10:06 PM
Any good rule set supports game play and game play is largely driven by what players are trying to achieve. In many games it seems the better players try to conquer vast areas, and the struggling ones just try to survive; others set their own goals that may or may not fit with what else is going on.

In a NES starting in the late 1400s and expecting to run for 100 to 200 years, how should winning be determined? What kinds of things should players be able to strive for?

Should it be a game of conquest: territory controlled?
Wealth: size of one's economy? Treasury accumulation?
Religious dominance?
Most advanced?
Improvement from starting position?
Victory points? If so for what?
Reaching assigned secret goals? Set by players? Set by Mod?
Weighted combination of some or all of the above?
None of that crap! Let chaos rule!

Rather than just start a game and have it unfold as it does, would any of you like to have a bit of structure that would allow nations less suited for world domination to have other ways to succeed that were formalized in some fashion.

das
Dec 13, 2008, 02:05 AM
In one of his many aborted NESes, stalin006 picked out the players by making them submit lists of goals for their three nations of choice, and judged them accordingly; those were the goals they were to pursuit for "victory points". This level of complication is unwarranted here, I think, but it might be good for people wanting to join to PM you their three top goals at the start. Then you could review them and ask for modifications in case of those goals being too easy or silly or otherwise inappropriate. When someone else joins later on, they would submit their own goals, even if they clash with the previous goals, for that would represent a major paradigm shift or somesuch.

If a goal is accomplished, add victory points and maybe give a bonus; maybe reveal it publicly when it happens, maybe not.

Possibly divide the NES into periods; at the end of a period, give out awards and reward fully for fully achieved goals and partly for partly achieved goals, then have the remaining players put forward new goals.

Justification: different nations in this period pursued widely different goals, the Chinese bureaucrats lost no sleep over some of the things for which English courtiers could throw away their lives (in the national political dimension; the personal lives were much more similar, I suppose). Those goals were shaped by their political and other circumstances, and by the prevalent theories of the time; but ultimately they were determined by the doctrines of the political elite and its individual representatives, and having been established could carry on for centuries by sheer inertia, especially if it is reinforced, as it often was, by genuine relevance.

The pursuit of personal wealth as in a treasury is the closest to being a real universal rule for the time, but it wouldn't really make for a very good game, I think.

Birdjaguar
Dec 13, 2008, 08:17 AM
Thank you das, good thoughts as usual. What do you think of the ideas as a game component? Would any scheme add to or take away from play?

das
Dec 13, 2008, 10:42 AM
What do you think of the ideas as a game component?

Care to clarify? Do you mean what we discussed above, or things like popular and courtly ideologies?

Birdjaguar
Dec 13, 2008, 05:48 PM
Care to clarify? Do you mean what we discussed above, or things like popular and courtly ideologies?
I had meant the idea of victory conditions or nation goals.

Birdjaguar
Dec 13, 2008, 07:13 PM
I find it interesting that since I posted my new question last night at 10 PM over 100 people took a look and only one posted. For a generally very opinionated crowd, I'm surprised that no one, except das, has actually expressed one. Maybe, as noted in WWW, people would rather spew pages of crap rather than talk about NESing.

Condor_green
Dec 13, 2008, 07:27 PM
I find it interesting that since I posted my new question last night at 10 PM over 100 people took a look and only one posted. For a generally very opinionated crowd, I'm surprised that no one, except das, has actually expressed one. Maybe, as noted in WWW, people would rather spew pages of crap rather than talk about NESing.

ooc whoops sorry i missed this one i agree with you completly the www threads need to be demolished

maybe concerning the aztecs incas and whoever else is in the new world you could create 2 maps 1 for the americas australia etc and 1 for the european powers than update both of them and pm them to people so the americas dont know where the europeans are and the europeans vice versa. it would take a lot of work but the product would be amazing

Symphony D.
Dec 13, 2008, 07:38 PM
I find it interesting that since I posted my new question last night at 10 PM over 100 people took a look and only one posted. For a generally very opinionated crowd, I'm surprised that no one, except das, has actually expressed one.
Hey look, independent verification of something I've been saying for about two years (since November 15, 2006) and have received constant crap for expressing my ire against. It's amazing! A short catalog of similar comments:

Alright, I will say this frankly and earnestly instead of simply letting it simmer. I am disappointed. I would by lying if I said I was not. I am not asking for a great commitment on the part of any one individual, I am merely asking for opinions. It's a simple fact that opinions are like *******s; everybody's got one. Most people hand theirs out at every opportunity, even when they're not wanted. I know I do. And here I was simply hoping to gather some of them, to try and create something. Instead, feedback has died out. Maybe my responses are too critical, and it's simply my own fault for alienating the contributors. If that's the case, please inform me of that. If it's not, then the only conclusion I can draw from this exercise is that nobody is interested, or at least not interested enough to contribute. If you aren't, say so. That's fine as well.
NESing is unique among most Internet communities in that elsewhere, when opinions are solicited, responses must generally be beaten off with a stick. The saying "Opinions are like . .. .. .. .. .. .. .s; everybody's got one," is a truism. It does not apply here. Why?
You want improvement in the market? You have to make your demands known to the people producing products. This is how commerce and industry works, it's how politics works, and there's no reason to believe it isn't how NESing works too. So when a producer goes out to the people and says "Yea verily, convey unto me what thou wisheth for thine NES," and there is virtually zero response, there is some kind of problem.
And people wonder why I'm "bitter," and "mean," and "critical." Not hard to point the finger there.

... But since I'm here: declaring something a victory condition arbitrarily makes no sense to me. When has somebody "won" in real life? The Macedonians and Greeks under Alexander, the Mongols under Genghis Khan, the British, and the Soviets all dominated huge areas of the Earth for their times--did they win? The United States built the United Nations, controlled vast proportions of the world's gold supply, and was the sole nuclear power for five years--did it win? It later became the unipolar superpower in 1991--did it win then?

There is no "victory" in geopolitics. The only constant is change. To establish something as "victory" only serves to inspire the vainglorious players who define "winning" as "getting a gold sticker" (instead of "personal satisfaction for self-established aims") to seek it out by playing to the objectives, and it reinforces that behavior. Territorial acquisition for example is not a benchmark of success if you're just mindlessly grabbing useless territory, or territory you cannot hold in the long-run. Then it's just a pointless waste of resources for ego and self-aggrandizement. But declaring "conquest = victory" will probably inspire some of our intellectually diverse crowd to believe it's A Good Thing® despite the fact, and lead to all sorts of wacky, nonsense situations of which there are already far too many far too often. Many other conditions, most probably, will do the same.

silver 2039
Dec 13, 2008, 07:52 PM
Maybe, as noted in WWW, people would rather spew pages of crap rather than talk about NESing.

You created that monster. Its like Frankenstein. Is it any surprise when the monster turns against its creator?

Birdjaguar
Dec 13, 2008, 07:52 PM
ooc whoops sorry i missed this one i agree with you completly the www threads need to be demolished

maybe concerning the aztecs incas and whoever else is in the new world you could create 2 maps 1 for the americas australia etc and 1 for the european powers than update both of them and pm them to people so the americas dont know where the europeans are and the europeans vice versa. it would take a lot of work but the product would be amazingMultiple maps are my stock in trade. If the world is cloaked, then knowlwdge will be limited.

What do you think about national victory conditions?

Birdjaguar
Dec 13, 2008, 07:56 PM
You created that monster. Its like Frankenstein. Is it any surprise when the monster turns against its creator?The road to hell is paved with good intentions....

I, in fact, did create the beast, but in my opening post, in the very first WWW thread, I did warn against excess and spam. But I do think that it is better to have all that crap there rather than in game threads.

Condor_green
Dec 13, 2008, 07:58 PM
Multiple maps are my stock in trade. If the world is cloaked, then knowlwdge will be limited.

What do you think about national victory conditions?

if by national victory conditions you meen that every nation has a set of goals to work for and if he completes them then the nation "wins" but the game continues

i think that would be awesome

Azale
Dec 13, 2008, 07:58 PM
I find it interesting that since I posted my new question last night at 10 PM over 100 people took a look and only one posted. For a generally very opinionated crowd, I'm surprised that no one, except das, has actually expressed one. Maybe, as noted in WWW, people would rather spew pages of crap rather than talk about NESing.

I agree that the WWW threads must die, whether that's what your implying or not :p I tend to not comment because of that whole "be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" saying, but I should probably speak up more.

Any good rule set supports game play and game play is largely driven by what players are trying to achieve. In many games it seems the better players try to conquer vast areas, and the struggling ones just try to survive; others set their own goals that may or may not fit with what else is going on.

In a NES starting in the late 1400s and expecting to run for 100 to 200 years, how should winning be determined? What kinds of things should players be able to strive for?

Should it be a game of conquest: territory controlled?
Wealth: size of one's economy? Treasury accumulation?
Religious dominance?
Most advanced?
Improvement from starting position?
Victory points? If so for what?
Reaching assigned secret goals? Set by players? Set by Mod?
Weighted combination of some or all of the above?
None of that crap! Let chaos rule!

1. Depends, since this is an age of exploration and prestige it could probably be a significant measuring stick for success, especially for the Europeans.

2. For some countries staying above water would be a success. Some will be bogged in war from the beginning, probably out of their control. I don't really like this one, and it's kinda boring like das said.

3. Yes, for countries where religious dominance is important. If Spain can't crack a few nonbelieving skulls, they should be docked victory points for that ;) (is that even a wink?)

4. I love this one, though it's hard to determine. Make a ranking system of easiest to hardest positions, then rate them again at the end of the NES and the greatest difference wins the most points?

5. Major victories in battle, innovative orders/stories, IC play, etc? The trick is to keep it from being too gamey, so leave most of the players in the dark.

6. Seems it would be a pretty big burden on Mr. Mod, probably not worth the payoff.

7. Yes!

8. Chaos breeds champions of men.

Birdjaguar
Dec 13, 2008, 07:58 PM
Hey look, independent verification of something I've been saying for about two years (since November 15, 2006) and have received constant crap for expressing my ire against. It's amazing! A short catalog of similar comments:




And people wonder why I'm "bitter," and "mean," and "critical." Not hard to point the finger there.

... But since I'm here: declaring something a victory condition arbitrarily makes no sense to me. When has somebody "won" in real life? The Macedonians and Greeks under Alexander, the Mongols under Genghis Khan, the British, and the Soviets all dominated huge areas of the Earth for their times--did they win? The United States built the United Nations, controlled vast proportions of the world's gold supply, and was the sole nuclear power for five years--did it win? It later became the unipolar superpower in 1991--did it win then?

There is no "victory" in geopolitics. The only constant is change. To establish something as "victory" only serves to inspire the vainglorious players who define "winning" as "getting a gold sticker" (instead of "personal satisfaction for self-established aims") to seek it out by playing to the objectives, and it reinforces that behavior. Territorial acquisition for example is not a benchmark of success if you're just mindlessly grabbing useless territory, or territory you cannot hold in the long-run. Then it's just a pointless waste of resources for ego and self-aggrandizement. But declaring "conquest = victory" will probably inspire some of our intellectually diverse crowd to believe it's A Good Thing® despite the fact, and lead to all sorts of wacky, nonsense situations of which there are already far too many far too often. Many other conditions, most probably, will do the same.

What you say about victory conditions is true, but inspite of all that can they be used to enhance game play? NESes are after all not RL, but games an most games have some organized way to carry oneself to victory. Whether we like it or not, "winning" is a quite exceptional motivator for many people.

silver 2039
Dec 13, 2008, 08:02 PM
I don't know about most people, but I decide what goals that my nation should work toward in the beginning and if I've achieved them by the end I'm fairly content, and my goals often change half way through based on my situation.

Symphony D.
Dec 13, 2008, 08:15 PM
What you say about victory conditions is true, but inspite of all that can they be used to enhance game play? NESes are after all not RL, but games an most games have some organized way to carry oneself to victory. Whether we like it or not, "winning" is a quite exceptional motivator for many people.
In my opinion this goes back to NES philosophy, and people aren't going to agree on that too often if they have different opinions, so I'm going to just lay out my piece. You can consider it and take it or leave it.
Structure in a game inherently comes from the domination of rules.
As structure increases, it may be generally said that actions become more rigidly defined and thus "good" actions may be more easily separated from "bad" actions.
In correlation, "victory" may be defined in more concrete terms.
Rules may be structured in any fashion, be it for their own sake ("gameplay") or to reflect a situation ("realism").
In reflecting a situation however ("realism") a game must inherently account for free-form actions.
No mechanical system is perfect and thus any set of rules with the goal of situational reflection ("realism") must inherently trend toward the open-ended, free-form method. The rules only serve as reality-reinforcement devices designed to assist, guide, streamline, and automate the process, barring a moderator with infinite time and knowledge.
Free-form is driven by personal objectives.
Personal objectives cannot be codified in rigid victory conditions because they are based on arbitrary personal preference.
Although many objectives may fall within a sort of standard distribution of goals, not all will, and to force all players to operate within such a context is to subject the individual player to a tyranny of the majority.
Now, I can continue from a Simulationist perspective and tell you that equating personal glory with the aims of the nation is what leads to most of NESing's wacky hijinks, be it fighting to the death, blind powerlust, or "blobification." I could also continue on with theory about how the diversity in commitment, mental aptitude, adaptability, time, pre-existing knowledge and so on makes NES untenable as a true competitive game between individuals. However, I'll leave the point where it is.

If you agree with this logic train as put forward in the list, encoding victory effectively denies players freedom and is more or less like saying "What you want doesn't matter, why don't you just go conquer some stuff like everybody else?" Just because a lot of people want the same thing, or think they do, doesn't mean they should be rewarded for it or encouraged to get it, particularly when it's at the expense of others.

sp1023
Dec 13, 2008, 08:20 PM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions....

I, in fact, did create the beast, but in my opening post, in the very first WWW thread, I did warn against excess and spam. But I do think that it is better to have all that crap there rather than in game threads.

Wow, so you created those abominations! :goodjob:

I find it interesting that since I posted my new question last night at 10 PM over 100 people took a look and only one posted. For a generally very opinionated crowd, I'm surprised that no one, except das, has actually expressed one. Maybe, as noted in WWW, people would rather spew pages of crap rather than talk about NESing.

Look, BJ. I don't know how to break this to you. But your NESes are all TOTALLY AWESOME! We don't need to comment on them, because with your brilliance, it doesn't matter what the idea or nation or whatnot is. Your NESes are AWESOME!

Symphony D.
Dec 13, 2008, 08:26 PM
Look, BJ. I don't know how to break this to you. But your NESes are all TOTALLY AWESOME! We don't need to comment on them, because with your brilliance, it doesn't matter what the idea or nation or whatnot is. Your NESes are AWESOME!
Since we're operating under the assumption you're young and impressionable, some advice: attitudes like that are why politics suck, terrible products get made, and the world generally bites. There is never an excuse for lack of input unless you just don't care, whether that not caring is simple ("I don't care") or complex ("I am too busy," read as "I prioritize other things higher than this"). It is a redefinition of "I will accept whatever is put in front of me for lack of something better," and it tends to be the thing wrong with this forum, nevermind the world at large.

Birdjaguar
Dec 13, 2008, 10:04 PM
In my opinion this goes back to NES philosophy, and people aren't going to agree on that too often if they have different opinions, so I'm going to just lay out my piece. You can consider it and take it or leave it.
Structure in a game inherently comes from the domination of rules.
As structure increases, it may be generally said that actions become more rigidly defined and thus "good" actions may be more easily separated from "bad" actions.
In correlation, "victory" may be defined in more concrete terms.
Rules may be structured in any fashion, be it for their own sake ("gameplay") or to reflect a situation ("realism").
In reflecting a situation however ("realism") a game must inherently account for free-form actions.
No mechanical system is perfect and thus any set of rules with the goal of situational reflection ("realism") must inherently trend toward the open-ended, free-form method. The rules only serve as reality-reinforcement devices designed to assist, guide, streamline, and automate the process, barring a moderator with infinite time and knowledge.
Free-form is driven by personal objectives.
Personal objectives cannot be codified in rigid victory conditions because they are based on arbitrary personal preference.
Although many objectives may fall within a sort of standard distribution of goals, not all will, and to force all players to operate within such a context is to subject the individual player to a tyranny of the majority.
Now, I can continue from a Simulationist perspective and tell you that equating personal glory with the aims of the nation is what leads to most of NESing's wacky hijinks, be it fighting to the death, blind powerlust, or "blobification." I could also continue on with theory about how the diversity in commitment, mental aptitude, adaptability, time, pre-existing knowledge and so on makes NES untenable as a true competitive game between individuals. However, I'll leave the point where it is.

If you agree with this logic train as put forward in the list, encoding victory effectively denies players freedom and is more or less like saying "What you want doesn't matter, why don't you just go conquer some stuff like everybody else?" Just because a lot of people want the same thing, or think they do, doesn't mean they should be rewarded for it or encouraged to get it, particularly when it's at the expense of others.Thank you. Your post is very helpful. part of my reason for raisng the topic is to make sure that the rules I am developing will support the game play desired. Specifically, I was working with the "overall score" stat I had in BirdNES 2. I seemed popular and provided some kind of benchmark for players to track progress amongst the other players. A fresh start NES made that pretty simple since every nation started at the same point and essentially had to move through similar patterns of growth.

In a historical game where every nation already has a history and relative place in the overall scheme, such a simple system won't work. That is why I am fishing for ideas about goals and victory conditions. I would like to have a similar stat that measured progress even if each nation has different goals or objectives. If I were to use such a system, then I need to build it into the rules.

Birdjaguar
Dec 13, 2008, 10:14 PM
Look, BJ. I don't know how to break this to you. But your NESes are all TOTALLY AWESOME! We don't need to comment on them, because with your brilliance, it doesn't matter what the idea or nation or whatnot is. Your NESes are AWESOME!Thanks, but recognize that flattery does not guarantee you the nation of your choice in any game I mod. ;)

Regardless of what you think of my games, it should not rob you of an opinion or willingness to contribute your ideas. Both of my previous games were built on the efforts of previous NESes and their designers. Each game was an ongoing work in progress that benefited from player suggestions and complaints, as well as, very creative play. :)

Symphony D.
Dec 13, 2008, 10:30 PM
In a historical game where every nation already has a history and relative place in the overall scheme, such a simple system won't work. That is why I am fishing for ideas about goals and victory conditions. I would like to have a similar stat that measured progress even if each nation has different goals or objectives. If I were to use such a system, then I need to build it into the rules.
The simple answer is simply to offer visual demographic feedback as is done for HDI, GDP, and so on. I agree with the theory put forward by Disenfrancised (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6484520&postcount=1683) that people like conquest simply because they have a visual representation of it. If you could also see your country getting a deeper green as your quality of living went up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Human_Development_Report_2007_(2).svg), or whatever, it would give much more meaning to doing things that otherwise seem intangible.

Making a map every turn is obviously impractical but you could have a "demographic census" every 3-6 turns or so and still convey the ideas (especially as policies tend to take time to have a notable effect). Achievement of goals can be discerned from well-presented data without having to spell it out as being "victory."

Birdjaguar
Dec 13, 2008, 10:46 PM
The simple answer is simply to offer visual demographic feedback as is done for HDI, GDP, and so on. I agree with the theory put forward by Disenfrancised (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6484520&postcount=1683) that people like conquest simply because they have a visual representation of it. If you could also see your country getting a deeper green as your quality of living went up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Human_Development_Report_2007_(2).svg), or whatever, it would give much more meaning to doing things that otherwise seem intangible.

Making a map every turn is obviously impractical but you could have a "demographic census" every 3-6 turns or so and still convey the ideas (especially as policies tend to take time to have a notable effect). Achievement of goals can be discerned from well-presented data without having to spell it out as being "victory."
Now that you mention them, I do remember those discussions. They bear considering. What to measure then becomes the real question. Economic data comes to mind, but a nation like China will clearly dominate from the start. In a game that last 200 years, we would not expect to see significant changes in standard of living. Life pretty much sucked for 90% of the population. I'm not sure what demographic data would be relevant in the 1500s. The Native American nations might start our fine, but can be expected to tank early in the game.

Symphony D.
Dec 14, 2008, 06:04 PM
What to measure then becomes the real question.
I'd make suggestions if I had any idea, but I don't; sorry.

Masada
Dec 15, 2008, 02:18 AM
Now that you mention them, I do remember those discussions. They bear considering. What to measure then becomes the real question. Economic data comes to mind, but a nation like China will clearly dominate from the start. In a game that last 200 years, we would not expect to see significant changes in standard of living. Life pretty much sucked for 90% of the population. I'm not sure what demographic data would be relevant in the 1500s. The Native American nations might start our fine, but can be expected to tank early in the game.

Living standards bah. It sucked for everyone, your average Westerner now lives a better life than the greatest king on average. From 1500-1700 net measurable improvement in living standards? Nil. Your measures have error margins larger than the gains. As a certain Scotsman was described to me, great fellow, great work, till you look at the error.

If I were a betting man, I would look at % of population involved in subsistance agriculture, improvements in agriculutral yields, availability of credit, % of trade expressed as a % of GDP, level of industrial production/resource production in key manfacturing/extraction areas, tax sophistication, ability of the state to run a defict funded without resorting to pillaging or theft, business confidence in government etc.

Heck, look at all the nice ways we measure 3rd world countries without resorting to absolute measures.

Angst
Dec 15, 2008, 05:18 PM
On the whole Victory Conditions thingy - national, that is - I would love them. Really, I'd like to have a Rhye's in NESing. I would be happy to see an implementation of any kind of reward system - especially since I enjoy rewards a lot. Look at my puny signature. I have written the only rewards ever received there.

However, the Victory Condition system has to be designed after my own brilliant opinion if I am to be completely satisfied. :p

A Suggestion of the System

Three unique Victory Conditions will have to be made for each nation. Whenever a nation reaches each goal and has each goal fulfilled on the same time, it is the 'victor' of the NES. However, this is only one NES award, and other NES awards have to be implemented in order to make players keep investing time and work into the NES.

The Victory Conditions, however, have to remain hidden to any other players than the Mod and the nation itself; otherwise players will work against the individual nation. It is also important to create three goals with varying difficulties - one easy, one troublesome, and one difficult goal.

Victory Condition Examples - I: Easy, II: Troublesome, III: Difficult

Denmark
I. Norway Denmark must have Norway as an integral part of the Kingdom.
II. The Sound Due Helsingør must be a trade center that amasses more gold than the nearest trade center and is owned by Denmark.
III. Sweden Sweden must be destroyed as a sovereign state.

England
I. Great Britain Great Britain must be unified under England's flag.
II. Anglican Church More than 90% of the British population must be following the Anglican Church. Normandy must be 30% Anglican.
III. The New World England must circumnavigate the globe and settle three continents with each said colony being stronger than the nearest French colony.

Ottoman Empire
I. Expansion The Ottoman Empire must have the Balkans, Egypt and Tunis as integral parts of the Empire.
II. Religious Tolerance Religious tensions may only contribute to 15% of national dissent inside the Ottoman Empire.
III. Istanbul Istanbul must be the world's most populated city, be a religious center, a cultural center and a trade center.

Spain
I. Expansion Spain must have colonial holdings outside of Europe 10 times the size of Spain herself.
II. Religious Domination All colonies must be 95% Catholic.
III. Portugal Spanish colonial holdings must altogether be greater than Portuguese holdings, give more total income and the three strongest must each have a higher income than the strongest Portuguese colony.

Here we have a number of examples from what I think are great victory conditions. However, we have some problems.

Problems are mainly that victory conditions first of all don't really apply to revolting nations. If Normandy for an instance revolted against the French, they would recieve a number of Victory Conditions, of course. But it is problematic. Especially since a dynamical world will need dynamical victory conditions. What if the Spanish player wanted to do an alternate history setting making Spain a religiously tolerant nation? What if France was in constant civil wars between two factions (Actually happened to me in EU2 once, it was joyful to watch. There was constantly two Frances between 1450 and 1750. It was both consisting of a north-vs-south, east-vs-west, Burgundy revolt, blurry-one-side-vs-blurry-another-side, English invasion etc. It was awesome. France only had 1 year of peace between each split. When France entered the fray as a whole nation, however, they were stronger than anyone else, and pwned my arse out of America), wouldn't the 'victory condition' be to unite France?

Summarized: Victory Conditions, yay, but they have to be done properly, and have to be dynamical.

Birdjaguar
Dec 15, 2008, 06:09 PM
Thank you Masada and Lord J. Your suggestions are good ideas. Some of the calculation needed in each of your very different posts may be troublesome, but we'll see.

Your post LJ raises another question: Should major nations be divided into "permanent" regions for barter, conquest or rrbellion rather than have "freeform" pieces added and subtracted as play moves along? There are advantages to each. Any preferences or reasons to go with one over the other?

Dachs
Dec 15, 2008, 06:13 PM
Your post LJ raises another question: Should major nations be divided into "permanent" regions for barter, conquest or rrbellion rather than have "freeform" pieces added and subtracted as play moves along? There are advantages to each. Any preferences or reasons to go with one over the other?
Division into permanent regions offers what advantages?

Birdjaguar
Dec 15, 2008, 06:17 PM
Division into permanent regions offers what advantages?Regions could have stats and a bit of an economy so several regions would total a nation.

Regions could have a religion separate from the dominant one in the nation.

National power could be built from regions and dissent could be stronger in one region than another.

Angst
Dec 15, 2008, 06:18 PM
Thank you Masada and Lord J. Your suggestions are good ideas. Some of the calculation needed in each of your very different posts may be troublesome, but we'll see.

:salute:

Your post LJ raises another question: Should major nations be divided into "permanent" regions for barter, conquest or rrbellion rather than have "freeform" pieces added and subtracted as play moves along? There are advantages to each. Any preferences or reasons to go with one over the other?

You mean naming the Scotland region Scotland and such? It will be practical for the new world at least.

Angst
Dec 15, 2008, 06:20 PM
Regions could have stats and a bit of an economy so several regions would total a nation.

Regions could have a religion separate from the dominant one in the nation.

National power could be built from regions and dissent could be stronger in one region than another.

Hell yeah, if that's what you're implying, then yes, do that. I tried in Lords of Sicily but due to micromanagement issues (And free time from my side), it never really flourished as an idea. Additionally, a king of two regions can also be elected count in a third region. This will lead to chaotic European intrigues, which we all miss when playing a medieval/rennaiscence Europe NES.

Birdjaguar
Dec 15, 2008, 06:23 PM
You mean naming the Scotland region Scotland and such? It will be practical for the new world at least.
I was more thinking about defineing the borders of provinces in larger nations like France and Spain etc.

Normandy, Loire, Burgundy, etc. I would have 4-8 maybe for each of the larger European nations.

Dachs
Dec 15, 2008, 06:59 PM
Regions could have stats and a bit of an economy so several regions would total a nation.
That sounds like somewhat unnecessary record-keeping to me. Like silver says: do you really need to organize that, especially when the regions themselves (as large as you've defined them) are usually larger than territorial cessions were in these days? You'd end up subdividing them anyway; why not keep things open-ended?
Regions could have a religion separate from the dominant one in the nation.
I do not see how not having regions specifically in the stats prevents this from being the case. Simply having the statistic "Religion: Catholic" for France would be stupid anyway; doing the Culture stat as in AFSNES I/DaNES I would be IMHO better anyway.
National power could be built from regions and dissent could be stronger in one region than another.
I have a bit of a problem with tracking 'dissent' in some kind of solid form anyway, because of the wide spectrum of disagreement with the government one can have.

Remember, too, that just because something is not in the stats does not mean it does not exist.

Angst
Dec 15, 2008, 07:02 PM
That sounds like somewhat unnecessary record-keeping to me. Like silver says: do you really need to organize that, especially when the regions themselves (as large as you've defined them) are usually larger than territorial cessions were in these days? You'd end up subdividing them anyway; why not keep things open-ended?

I do not see how not having regions specifically in the stats prevents this from being the case. Simply having the statistic "Religion: Catholic" for France would be stupid anyway; doing the Culture stat as in AFSNES I/DaNES I would be IMHO better anyway.

I have a bit of a problem with tracking 'dissent' in some kind of solid form anyway, because of the wide spectrum of disagreement with the government one can have.

Remember, too, that just because something is not in the stats does not mean it does not exist.

How do you hurt an economy through taking its factory when you don't know which factory is the biggest?

My opinion.

Dachs
Dec 15, 2008, 07:15 PM
How do you hurt an economy through taking its factory when you don't know which factory is the biggest?

My opinion.
...what? Like I said, you don't have to have something concretely in the stats to make it real. Do you not ask the mod questions, or something?

Angst
Dec 15, 2008, 07:19 PM
C'mon, you understood that line :sad:

Hell, it is both easier for the mod and the player to have quicker references with regions. I don't really have any other arguments, but I think it remains valid. It is a much more powerful tool.

Dachs
Dec 15, 2008, 07:30 PM
C'mon, you understood that line :sad:

Hell, it is both easier for the mod and the player to have quicker references with regions. I don't really have any other arguments, but I think it remains valid. It is a much more powerful tool.
You can still reference regions without having them being the iron units of territorial exchange. Not having "Paionia" delineated on the map and in the stats does not prevent me from giving the mod an order "invade Paionia with 20,000 soldiers, conquer Serdike and establish a military colony there, along with frontier posts", or asking the mod a question "by how much will my income increase upon conquering Paionia", or finding out "what is the major ethnic group in Paionia, and what do they worship".

Birdjaguar
Dec 15, 2008, 07:42 PM
That sounds like somewhat unnecessary record-keeping to me. Like silver says: do you really need to organize that, especially when the regions themselves (as large as you've defined them) are usually larger than territorial cessions were in these days? You'd end up subdividing them anyway; why not keep things open-ended?
Building the world from regions rather than nations would be quite interesting, but a pretty gargantuan task. Each nation would have to consist of regions that compiled into that nation at that time. As borders changed, then regions would have to change ownership too. It would add another layer of more primary detail and, yes, probably more than necessary. It is only a game after all. ;)

Birdjaguar
Dec 15, 2008, 07:57 PM
C'mon, you understood that line :sad:

Hell, it is both easier for the mod and the player to have quicker references with regions. I don't really have any other arguments, but I think it remains valid. It is a much more powerful tool.Building nation stats from regional stats would be pretty awesome, but it would add substantially to the work load, both during the set up and as the game progressed. Each nation would have its regional information that was drawn from one palce and then its own National stats that the player controlled.

For example, if Normandy had a base economy of say 3 and France owned it, the French player might want to "improve" that to 4. If France traded or lost Normandy to England, then England might get it at the base value of 3, all French improvements being lost.

So this raises the question, could such a system be used without the regions being specifically defined on the map? Is the idea of building national economies from regional or provincal economies a worthwhile endeavor? This would have the game effect of "automatically" changing ones economy as terrritory grows and shrinks. Rich lands would have more value than poorer ones.

In treaty negotiations, a player would demand to get Burgundy (worth 3) rather than Nantes (worth 1). On the map the area would be "blobs" in the correct area, but stats would reflect a defined value.

Angst
Dec 15, 2008, 08:18 PM
Building nation stats from regional stats would be pretty awesome, but it would add substantially to the work load, both during the set up and as the game progressed. Each nation would have its regional information that was drawn from one palce and then its own National stats that the player controlled.

For example, if Normandy had a base economy of say 3 and France owned it, the French player might want to "improve" that to 4. If France traded or lost Normandy to England, then England might get it at the base value of 3, all French improvements being lost.

So this raises the question, could such a system be used without the regions being specifically defined on the map? Is the idea of building national economies from regional or provincal economies a worthwhile endeavor? This would have the game effect of "automatically" changing ones economy as terrritory grows and shrinks. Rich lands would have more value than poorer ones.

In treaty negotiations, a player would demand to get Burgundy (worth 3) rather than Nantes (worth 1). On the map the area would be "blobs" in the correct area, but stats would reflect a defined value.

Well, I don't really know whether the provinces have to be drawn on the map or not. Perhaps a simple province-unique number (Again; Lords of Sicily) could help finding out wherever a province is geographically. Or any labelling.

However, I would like to conclude at least half of the debate - The problem isn't really wherever regions are awesome or not, it's that they have a good chance of requiring a lot of work, right?

You can still reference regions without having them being the iron units of territorial exchange. Not having "Paionia" delineated on the map and in the stats does not prevent me from giving the mod an order "invade Paionia with 20,000 soldiers, conquer Serdike and establish a military colony there, along with frontier posts", or asking the mod a question "by how much will my income increase upon conquering Paionia", or finding out "what is the major ethnic group in Paionia, and what do they worship".

... However if Paionia is already listed in the stats, you don't have to wait for a reply and can work an additional day on the update.

Birdjaguar
Dec 15, 2008, 08:42 PM
Well, I don't really know whether the provinces have to be drawn on the map or not. Perhaps a simple province-unique number (Again; Lords of Sicily) could help finding out wherever a province is geographically. Or any labelling.

However, I would like to conclude at least half of the debate - The problem isn't really wherever regions are awesome or not, it's that they have a good chance of requiring a lot of work, right?



... However if Paionia is already listed in the stats, you don't have to wait for a reply and can work an additional day on the update.Provinces/regions would have be set up at the game's start and a map showing general locations posted for reference. In a cloaked map, as the cloak rolled back, so would the province map. Base values for things like economy or population or resources would have to be assigned. Imagine the list. How long would it be? How many in North America? I think that would be the hardest part.

Any system might have to be broken into two parts; one for already developed land and the other for undeveloped land. maybe it is a system taht is only used in Europe, India China and the Middle East. I see this as an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it is a good one.

Angst
Dec 15, 2008, 09:26 PM
Kinda short comment, but I thought it was a nugget.

Perhaps it therefore only worked in Lords of Sicily because the NES is so regional.

Birdjaguar
Dec 15, 2008, 10:37 PM
Kinda short comment, but I thought it was a nugget.

Perhaps it therefore only worked in Lords of Sicily because the NES is so regional.I will continue to think about it and do welcome comments or related suggestions.

Symphony D.
Dec 15, 2008, 10:52 PM
Three unique Victory Conditions will have to be made for each nation.
So you're telling players how to play, rewarding them for doing so, and punishing them for not doing so. Why have players at all then? The point of humans is that they operate in arbitrary and unique fashions, not because they mindlessly and robotically pursue some preordained goal. I find this suggestion disgusting as a player, quite honestly. It has no place in a multiplayer, free-form game; it was developed for a single-player, rigidly structured game for a reason--because it works in that architecture. In the architecture of NES it would be the mod saying "I want the world to look like this and damn you and what you want, players" by different means.

Regions could have stats and a bit of an economy so several regions would total a nation.

Regions could have a religion separate from the dominant one in the nation.

National power could be built from regions and dissent could be stronger in one region than another.
Been there, done that (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4571750&postcount=38). As an idea it's difficult to pin down because you have to identify areas by what constitutes an "economically centralized" region. In the present, it tends to be agglomerated (http://www.mi.vt.edu/uploads/megacensusreport.pdf), but in the past it was much more distributed. Working it out is difficult at best.

Angst
Dec 15, 2008, 11:10 PM
... Did you even care to read through my post before replying?

Symphony D.
Dec 15, 2008, 11:29 PM
... Did you even care to read through my post before replying?
Yes, I did. And your goals are telling people what to do. For example:

Victory Condition Examples - I: Easy, II: Troublesome, III: Difficult

Denmark
I. Norway Denmark must have Norway as an integral part of the Kingdom.
II. The Sound Due Helsingør must be a trade center that amasses more gold than the nearest trade center and is owned by Denmark.
III. Sweden Sweden must be destroyed as a sovereign state.

England
I. Great Britain Great Britain must be unified under England's flag.
II. Anglican Church More than 90% of the British population must be following the Anglican Church. Normandy must be 30% Anglican.
III. The New World England must circumnavigate the globe and settle three continents with each said colony being stronger than the nearest French colony.
"Denmark must conquer Norway, or Denmark is a LOSER!"
"Denmark must constantly war against Sweden, or Denmark is a LOSER!"
"England must conquer the rest of the British Isles, or England is a LOSER!"
"England must proselytize Anglicanism, or England is a LOSER!"
"England must be a colonial power and sail around the world, or England is a LOSER!"
Et cetera.

Look at that amazing freedom right there. Gee whiz, if I wanted to do something other than those things, I sure would be happy with being told that what I wanted made me a sucky wuss. The trouble with declaring something "VICTORY" or "WIN" is that it automatically defines everything else as "FAILURE" or "LOSS." I don't see what's difficult to understand about that concept. There is no histographic victory here, so unlike Rhye's, if you can't or don't want to meet any of these stipulations, you're labeled a failure by the system.

That's not fun. And it's not a good way to encourage creativity or independent thought. It is a damn good way to stamp everyone into the same mold and make them try and fill whatever goals the moderator decides are "dynamically appropriate" to avoid being labeled a failure though.

Birdjaguar
Dec 15, 2008, 11:31 PM
Been there, done that (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4571750&postcount=38). As an idea it's difficult to pin down because you have to identify areas by what constitutes an "economically centralized" region. In the present, it tends to be agglomerated (http://www.mi.vt.edu/uploads/megacensusreport.pdf), but in the past it was much more distributed. Working it out is difficult at best.
Nice link thanks. Did it ever get implemented beyond your example?

Birdjaguar
Dec 15, 2008, 11:38 PM
Yes, I did. And your goals are telling people what to do. For example:But he is thinking and putting out for all to see and think about. Any goal system has to begin somewhere and LJ's was a good first step. It raises qustions and through those questions we can arrrive at answers that will lead to new questions. His goals may be telling people what to do; OK, so how do we set goals that don't do that? How do we create a sense of accomplishment without such a direct approach?

Symphony D.
Dec 15, 2008, 11:42 PM
Nice link thanks. Did it ever get implemented beyond your example?
No.

His goals may be telling people what to do; OK, so how do we set goals that don't do that? How do we create a sense of accomplishment without such a direct approach?
A sense of accomplishment already exists unless you have a player that just does stuff without thinking. People set their own objectives, and they know if they've met them or if they haven't. As I keep saying, there is no reason to formalize that process. But if you wanted to for some reason, you would have the players submit their goals to you instead of just arbitrarily making up things for them to achieve.

Birdjaguar
Dec 15, 2008, 11:47 PM
Yes those are excellent approaches. I raised the question in the context of trying to calculate an ongoing score for nations so players would know how they were doing relative to others. In that light the goals issue takes on a different appearance. I need to go to bed, I will pick this up tomorrow.

fantasmo
Dec 16, 2008, 01:01 AM
Symphony, given how rabid you are about how none of us want to change, or none of us join in discussion, has it occurred to you that the way you respond to people who do come out and attempt to discuss has something to do with it? Take, for example, when you said that you found LJ's suggestion "disgusting". Does this not strike you as a slightly douche-esque thing to say? Does it not strike you as something that deters people from making suggestions or supplying input? Do you consider such things, before you state your disgust with both our ideas and our lack of ideas, or do you just spew vitriolic crap all across the internets in the hopes that we'll just search the forums for your ideas, and repost them so you can accuse us of plagiarism and feel vindicated?


On a lighter note, Bird, being as I am somewhat behind the curve, I've spent quite some time pondering how you could model multi-state dynasties like the Hapsburgs or the later Bourbons, and when I feel it's ready and my self-esteem can handle being told that both my suggestion and my mere presence on the internet disgusts Lord Symphony, I'll post it for critique/abuse.

Dachs
Dec 16, 2008, 01:09 AM
Well, I don't really know whether the provinces have to be drawn on the map or not. Perhaps a simple province-unique number (Again; Lords of Sicily) could help finding out wherever a province is geographically. Or any labelling.
If the province is not of exact area, how do you know how much $$ you get out of it? :rolleyes:
However, I would like to conclude at least half of the debate - The problem isn't really wherever regions are awesome or not, it's that they have a good chance of requiring a lot of work, right?
Not just that they require work but that they are unnecessarily stultifying.
... However if Paionia is already listed in the stats, you don't have to wait for a reply and can work an additional day on the update.
How long does it take you to write orders? :confused: It takes time to get responses from other players, e.g. diplomacy; how is asking the mod any different?

Symphony D.
Dec 16, 2008, 01:38 AM
Symphony, given how rabid you are about how none of us want to change, or none of us join in discussion, has it occurred to you that the way you respond to people who do come out and attempt to discuss has something to do with it? Take, for example, when you said that you found LJ's suggestion "disgusting". Does this not strike you as a slightly douche-esque thing to say? Does it not strike you as something that deters people from making suggestions or supplying input? Do you consider such things, before you state your disgust with both our ideas and our lack of ideas, or do you just spew vitriolic crap all across the internets in the hopes that we'll just search the forums for your ideas, and repost them so you can accuse us of plagiarism and feel vindicated?
Unlike some people around here, when I think an idea is particularly bad, I do not smile and nod my head and lie to your face and tell you that it's OK.

I tell you it's bad, and I tell you why. If you can defend it despite that, maybe you can convince me that it's good. If you can't, odds are it was in fact bad. So if I'm spewing out "vitriolic crap" constantly, you'll have to excuse me for having STANDARDS. This forum is already too much like a particularly naive and overly nice girl who doesn't have any--she just can't say "no." I'm not going to turn off my brain and allow terrible ideas to go into practice or be thought of as useful just because that's the "nice" thing to do. Sue me.

fantasmo
Dec 16, 2008, 01:55 AM
I'm not saying don't tell people their ideas are bad. You seem relatively smart, and seem to have some degree of vocabulary, so have you heard of tact? You can use that to say that people have horrid ideas, without saying that it disgusts you, thereby removing any desire someone may have to post an idea when the person who started the thread is asking for ideas. Have you also considered, perhaps, constructive criticism, instead of just, to use bold-caps for emphasis in the hopes that this will get through to you, which I can only assume is your reasoning behind it, TEARING DOWN IDEAS BECAUSE THEY AREN'T CARBON COPIES OF YOURS? Despite what you may believe, you and your concepts are not, in fact, the be all and end all of NESing.

Did Bird say that he was going to take LJ's ideas and use them as they were? No, he said they were a starting point. He was going to build on that, change it, likely make it a more open system. As someone who demands realism in all things at all times, Symphony, surely you should be able to appreciate that some people desire to have a guide for "these are the historical intentions of your chosen state"? Is your problem simply that you cannot project development of ideas? That you could not see that rather than being a requirement that you do something or be, as you so eloquently put it, a "loser", LJ's "victory conditions" could instead act as guidelines? As a statement of "If you want to aim for an historical outcome, these are what your state did in this period"? Bird was looking for development ideas, LJ was providing them. What did you provide? You gave us such helpful things as "been there, done that", with a link to something you did. Truly, a tactful way of putting your idea forward. You gave us the ripping of LJ to shreds, which, while I admit is perhaps not a breach of "netiquette", is a blatant breach of societal norms for response, also known as "etiquette", which is the interaction of people in reality, which really should be a guide for you here as well.

Anyway, you can say I'm trying to ensure that shithouse ideas go into practice, which I'm not, since I don't like LJ's idea either, though it certainly doesn't disgust me, because I can see development potential in it, and you can respond to this if you want, but you may have noticed in past that I try to avoid confrontation, when I can, so I'm not all that inclined for us to continue this threadjacking (a breach of netiquette). I've said all I'll say, and you're welcome to respond, and if you can convince me that you weren't being a dickhead, then we can all have a party and be the very best of friends, and if not, fine, all in the past, and this thread can get back to NES development anyway.

Apologies to Bird for this.

Symphony D.
Dec 16, 2008, 02:24 AM
I'm not saying don't tell people their ideas are bad. You seem relatively smart, and seem to have some degree of vocabulary, so have you heard of tact?
Tact is nice in theory but in practice all too often you really just have to opt for the sledgehammer for people to take notice.

Have you also considered, perhaps, constructive criticism
If you'll notice, I have provided alternatives, instead of merely tearing things down and walking away...

TEARING DOWN IDEAS BECAUSE THEY AREN'T CARBON COPIES OF YOURS? Despite what you may believe, you and your concepts are not, in fact, the be all and end all of NESing.
... Even when I don't agree with them. I don't ask for credit. I don't necessarily even like many of them anymore. These are not "my" ideas. These are ideas anyone would, could and probably should arrive at upon proper reflection.

It does not take a genius to reckon that ideas from a single-player game where actions are rigidly constrained to a very select number of actions doesn't translate well to a multi-player game where actions are almost infinite. Does it? You tell me.

As someone who demands realism in all things at all times, Symphony, surely you should be able to appreciate that some people desire to have a guide for "these are the historical intentions of your chosen state"?
I believe in strong and educated players, not players spoon-fed their goals. A player should be pointed at references for such objectives to verse themselves in the character of their nation, surely. Telling them they must do X, Y, and Z is pathetic (and yes, I do think that, and I will describe it in such terms: deal with it) and assumes the worst of them, no matter how often they might live down to such disappointments. If anything is pessimism, that's it.

Is your problem simply that you cannot project development of ideas? That you could not see that rather than being a requirement that you do something or be, as you so eloquently put it, a "loser", LJ's "victory conditions" could instead act as guidelines?
So Super Mario Bros tells you "Kill Bowser and save Princess Peach, or lose," you take that as guidelines, eh? Victory is a binary condition. It produces binary behavior. It's not win, lose, or draw; it's win or lose. Nobody wants to lose.

Are you telling you'd be cool with doing unique stories and orders for months and doing your own thing and then suddenly being told at the end "Oh, well, even though these are just guidelines, you totally didn't follow them, so I'm just going to say you're a terrible player?" Really? That's pretty selfless of you.

What did you provide? You gave us such helpful things as "been there, done that", with a link to something you did. Truly, a tactful way of putting your idea forward.
Maybe you should do some research (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=300354&page=7) before shooting your mouth off, 'Tex. I already said and explained why player goals should be user defined before LJ dropped the Rhye's Bomb, just like I reiterated that point after I explained why his idea was freaking terrible. Try paying attention before playing the White Knight.

You gave us the ripping of LJ to shreds, which, while I admit is perhaps not a breach of "netiquette", is a blatant breach of societal norms for response, also known as "etiquette", which is the interaction of people in reality, which really should be a guide for you here as well.
You're right, people are never strong-willed or strong-opinioned in reality. Never at all. Some ideas aren't so truly terrible that some people won't find themselves physically, emotionally, or intellectually repulsed by the very idea of them. Hey, by the way, what's your opinion of eugenics?

Anyway, you can say I'm trying to ensure that shithouse ideas go into practice, which I'm not, since I don't like LJ's idea either, though it certainly doesn't disgust me, because I can see development potential in it
Newsflash! If you see something that will only have a good outcome if it is radically altered from it's extant state, you have a responsibility to assist in getting it to that state. Yet you're just here to chew me out while assuming that it somehow would have just magically gotten to that point all on its own without you lifting a damn finger. Ho-hum. So where were you before you decided you'd play Karmic Avenger and try and beat me down for actually doing some work to that end, fantasmo? Where were you? Where are your suggestions? Where is your constructive criticism?

I guess you're one of those types who just assumes everything always works out for the better on its own? Yeah, that works so well in "real life." Using "being nice" as a way to excuse yourself of any responsibility is a pretty slick move, but it's not a very justifiable one. Why don't you take some of your own medicine and get out of my face when you can't even be bothered to stand up for the very things you supposedly espouse?

The Strategos
Dec 16, 2008, 07:14 AM
But if you wanted to for some reason, you would have the players submit their goals to you instead of just arbitrarily making up things for them to achieve.

As I see it, the implications of doing this would be less flexible players. I don’t know how other players operate, but my goals are highly dependent upon the situation I find myself in. I fear that player submitted goals will merely encourage overly stubborn play, resulting in more of the “fight-to-the-death” play. Take, for example, a NES set in 1450 CE that used this system. England’s player decides he wishes to make his goal the retention of his French possessions. Like in real life, France gains the upper hand and England is defeated. Now the player has a choice, give up on France or continue the fight. If victory points have any meaning in the game (and if they don’t, what is the point in having them?) the player will choose the path that gives them the points, and will thus continue fighting long after the outcome is decided.

If, in this situation, I as a defender became suspicious that I controlled the attackers “victory conditions” then essentially, I will have no choice but to wage a total war in an attempt to completely conquer the attacker. Unless you have a very strongly committed roleplayer, the defender will see that no matter how reasonable of peace he offers or how advantageous he makes peace, he will be continuously attacked, and will thus move to remove the problem at its root, namely removing the perpetual attacker from the map.

Now there are a couple of ways I can think of to get around this. First, you could make all goals time dependent, “you must do x by y.” This, however, is an unattractive option in my book as it only encourages more total war and the allocation of all resources of a nation to said goal. Build roads? Develop culture? Engage in patronage of the arts? If it doesn’t fulfill my immediate goal why bother, they’re not helping me attain “victory.”

A second possible option would be allowing the player to change their “victory conditions” as often as they like. Essentially then, the goals would just be turn goals, as the moment achieving the goals appears the least difficult, it would be to the players advantage to switch the goals to something easier, thus assuring themselves the best possibility of attaining the reward for achieving their goals. It would also, I would think, encourage goals that would promote self-absorbed behavior as it is easier to achieve goals when they are not opposed by another player. For example, a goal of “colonize Virginia” is an easy goal to fulfill if you are a colonizing power, or “develop a top five culture” as long as you have money, compared to the much harder to achieve (and thus less likely to be made into a goal) “establish control over Northern Italy” or “Dominate Black Sea trade” where you continuously will face player opposition in your efforts.

Symphony D.
Dec 16, 2008, 07:23 AM
A second possible option would be allowing the player to change their “victory conditions” as often as they like.
I'd agree that this is the better option, if a formal approach is required.

Angst
Dec 16, 2008, 09:01 AM
If the province is not of exact area, how do you know how much $$ you get out of it? :rolleyes:

Sorry, but what do you mean?

Not just that they require work but that they are unnecessarily stultifying.

Well, maybe it's just me. I just like provinces.

How long does it take you to write orders? :confused: It takes time to get responses from other players, e.g. diplomacy; how is asking the mod any different?

Epic orders? Ask Abaddon. Good orders? Ask... Ehm. *cough*

On a more serious note, because asking the mod is one more question, one more deal that you have to have finished before having your tactical campaign is ready. Perhaps it's only me, but I always appreciate when information is accesable.

--------------------------

Take, for example, when you said that you found LJ's suggestion "disgusting".

Thank you. I am really glad to see some moral (not ideological, I read that you didn't really like my ideas) support here.

Tact is nice in theory but in practice all too often you really just have to opt for the sledgehammer for people to take notice.

No. We aren't as primitive as you believe.

Telling them they must do X, Y, and Z is pathetic (and yes, I do think that, and I will describe it in such terms: deal with it)

There. You just wrote that my actions are pathetic.

So where were you before you decided you'd play Karmic Avenger and try and beat me down for actually doing some work to that end, fantasmo? Where were you? Where are your suggestions? Where is your constructive criticism?

Read his post.

I guess you're one of those types who just assumes everything always works out for the better on its own? Yeah, that works so well in "real life." Using "being nice" as a way to excuse yourself of any responsibility is a pretty slick move, but it's not a very justifiable one. Why don't you take some of your own medicine and get out of my face when you can't even be bothered to stand up for the very things you supposedly espouse?

Because acting the way you do works very well.

--------------------------

A second possible option would be allowing the player to change their “victory conditions” as often as they like. Essentially then, the goals would just be turn goals, as the moment achieving the goals appears the least difficult, it would be to the players advantage to switch the goals to something easier, thus assuring themselves the best possibility of attaining the reward for achieving their goals. It would also, I would think, encourage goals that would promote self-absorbed behavior as it is easier to achieve goals when they are not opposed by another player. For example, a goal of “colonize Virginia” is an easy goal to fulfill if you are a colonizing power, or “develop a top five culture” as long as you have money, compared to the much harder to achieve (and thus less likely to be made into a goal) “establish control over Northern Italy” or “Dominate Black Sea trade” where you continuously will face player opposition in your efforts.

I like this. However, I still do believe that victory conditions, even when they are chosen by the players, should increase some kind of a score sheet.

Dachs
Dec 16, 2008, 11:20 AM
A second possible option would be allowing the player to change their “victory conditions” as often as they like. Essentially then, the goals would just be turn goals, as the moment achieving the goals appears the least difficult, it would be to the players advantage to switch the goals to something easier, thus assuring themselves the best possibility of attaining the reward for achieving their goals.
Question: what's the point of making said victory conditions known, then?
Sorry, but what do you mean?
How are you supposed to know how much money one gets by conquering a province if you don't have an exact definition of provincial boundaries?
Epic orders? Ask Abaddon. Good orders? Ask... Ehm. *cough*

On a more serious note, because asking the mod is one more question, one more deal that you have to have finished before having your tactical campaign is ready. Perhaps it's only me, but I always appreciate when information is accesable.
Best Orders: Dachspmg - detailed and inspired, but at the same time concisely-worded orders, occasional strangeness aside.

[...]

Most Inquisitive Player: Dachspmg - others asked plenty of questions as well, but I think he wins by sheer quantity and organisation.
I know a little bit about writing orders and asking questions, too, and during a time in which I really didn't have a whole lot of energy to devote to NESing (what with applying to college and so on). :p

I respectfully submit that even multi-PM orders don't require multi-day writing times, and that the need to ask questions of the mod does not inhibit proper composition of orders. And again, failure to divide territories into regions doesn't mean region-like entities can't appear in the stats. The 'culture' stat can still state what religion is dominant where in the country without having to resort to regions, especially when within a given region there is no guarantee of homogeneity anyway.

North King
Dec 16, 2008, 11:27 AM
How are you supposed to know how much money one gets by conquering a province if you don't have an exact definition of provincial boundaries?

Question: since when does a ruler know how much money they'd get by conquering a province?

Dachs
Dec 16, 2008, 11:36 AM
Question: since when does a ruler know how much money they'd get by conquering a province?
Fine. How much money do you acquire in revenue from a province that you already own if you don't know the province's exact boundaries?

Symphony D.
Dec 16, 2008, 11:49 AM
No. We aren't as primitive as you believe.
Primitiveness has nothing to do with it. It's a question of attention and discerning the arguments of others. On that score, forgive me if I find such a claim hard to believe when made by people who have difficulty imagining that they might possibly hold opinions that someone else would find detestable.

There. You just wrote that my actions are pathetic.
I stand by that statement. Am I supposed to feel bad? Because I don't. I feel a little bit of pity for someone who cannot formulate their own objectives. I also hold a bit of curiosity as to why someone who wants their goals spelled out for them in black and white would choose to engage in an activity that is a sort of role-playing choose-your-own-adventure and operates on the precise opposite philosophy of what one enjoys. But I stand by my comments without remorse.

If you find that so difficult to believe, imagine how you would feel talking to say, a misogynist. Would you not disagree with their position sufficiently (given your signature) to label their viewpoint pathetic? Would you not feel a little sad at them having such a limited world view? Well, that's how I feel about your perspective, and why I am opposed to you trying to suggest it be imposed on others who feel differently.

Read his post.
His suggestions came in the form of a promise he would post such when he wasn't too busy being offended by me. I'm terribly sorry but I don't accept IOUs as intellectual currency.

Because acting the way you do works very well.
What I do is exercise my opinion, because I know no one else will do it for me. That is more than can be said for most people. I speak up for myself, and I stand up for myself. And I categorically reject things I believe will have a negative impact on the community and thus ultimately on me. Birdjaguar is an influential personage on this forum, and what he does can influence others and is thus ultimately of consequence to everyone. For that reason, I view dissuading him of ideas I find terrible to be a high priority.

What I do, sir, is express myself. I take action. That is more than can be said for 80-90% of this forum, and I will not apologize for sharing my opinions honestly and frankly, nor will I compromise who or what I am out of concern for your fragile ego or that of anyone else. If you find my choice of words so terribly offensive and rude compared to what else exists out in the great wide world, I would humbly suggest that the problem lies not with my personality, but with yours.

Birdjaguar
Dec 16, 2008, 06:38 PM
Let's be done with Sym's abuse of LJ and stick to the topics at hand.

Sym, I appreciate your posts and ideas, but if you cannot communicate them in a kind manner when refering to others, I'd rather you not post in my thread. I'm sure you can manage it. :)

Angst
Dec 16, 2008, 11:27 PM
On the whole province-orders-thingy, and on this:

How much money do you acquire in revenue from a province that you already own if you don't know the province's exact boundaries?

"Great Britain
Income: 10

I invade Ireland to destroy their industry."

~-~

"Great Britain
Ireland Income: 1
Scotland Income: 3
England Income: 6

Oh, it's England that is the wealthier. Invade Scotland since England probably is too well-protected."

This is practically what I meant. Summarized, of course.

Dachs
Dec 18, 2008, 09:22 AM
"Great Britain
Income: 10

I invade Ireland to destroy their industry."

~-~

"Great Britain
Ireland Income: 1
Scotland Income: 3
England Income: 6

Oh, it's England that is the wealthier. Invade Scotland since England probably is too well-protected."

This is practically what I meant. Summarized, of course.
So this is for the people who don't know that England has more monies than Scotland? Wow, that's rather depressing. I think I would prefer actual background research by the player, which would indicate why that is the case, instead of this particular panacea. See, in many ways NESing is a learning tool, whether it is acknowledged as such or not (I know that a lot of what I have learned over the past few years has come to me while looking up stuff for NESes) and providing unnecessary information to the detriment of researching it and finding out stuff on your own defeats that purpose. Especially when it's still an inadequate basis for geopolitical calculations such as that which you mentioned by itself, and you still haven't addressed how you know how much money each area gets if they are not well defined. Is it England or Scotland which controls Newcastle, for example? At various points in British history, it was a territory near the border between the two with great economic import...but you've failed to cite where it is, and the numbers '3' and '6' (whatever '3' and '6' "eco points" mean, of course, but that's a whole other can of worms) do not really tell me either.

This also raises the question of what areas you've decided to group together. Economically integrated regions (if you can really claim such a thing to exist; perhaps economically 'unified'?...these things seem to be all too nebulous...) or political ones? If it is organized by political region, you can be sure that conquest will not provide you anything close to the revenue from the previous owner, and may alter the whole system in radical ways. And, of course, there is the problem of accounting for trade, which will throw off the new estimates again. So an attempt at making region-based economic stats could even be misleading to the players.

In any event, the argument as it is seems pretty useless, since Birdjag has already acknowledged that he probably isn't going to put in the extra work for such little gain, but if you really want to the discussion can be continued in the development thread.

Disenfrancised
Dec 18, 2008, 12:34 PM
This also raises the question of what areas you've decided to group together. Economically integrated regions (if you can really claim such a thing to exist; perhaps economically 'unified'?...these things seem to be all too nebulous...) or political ones?

Psh, of course you can, its just a question of using the appropriate mathematical definitions (and if you have the relevant information to hand). Consider this graph, which lets say represents the towns of Randomstan:
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6347/64125834zm5.png
how many economic regions would you divide Randomstan into?

Now obviously you can divide these into clusters, but what they are depends on your assorting algorithm. If you say that a cluster is defined by member towns which are one link from every other town in the cluster there are 4 'regions'. If you define it by making a regional definition as 'clusters where every town is 2 links from every other town' then there are 3 'regions' (the membership of 7,9 and 10 being debatable). If the edges in this diagram had weightings from amount of trade you could do even better clustering analysis.

You can do the same with economic networks with clumps of economic actors (factories, towns colonies, mines et al if your being really specific, cities and provinces being better) forming the nodes and volume/value of trade the edges, and thus define clusters on with-in cluster trade exceeding out of cluster trade/with an one other grouping. Of course this is tedious and mathematical in low resolution NESing, so the moderator can just easily use their historical knowledge and say the 19th century Great Lakes, 18th Century Northern England, 17th Century lowlands+northern European rivers, the Chinese Grand Canal in any era after its construction and so on...

They are not too nebulous, they just require your precise assumptions and sources - just like every other damn statistic :p

Angst
Dec 18, 2008, 03:18 PM
So this is for the people who don't know that England has more monies than Scotland? Wow, that's rather depressing.

Dude, it was simplified. :p

I think I would prefer actual background research by the player, which would indicate why that is the case, instead of this particular panacea. See, in many ways NESing is a learning tool, whether it is acknowledged as such or not (I know that a lot of what I have learned over the past few years has come to me while looking up stuff for NESes) and providing unnecessary information to the detriment of researching it and finding out stuff on your own defeats that purpose. Especially when it's still an inadequate basis for geopolitical calculations such as that which you mentioned by itself, and you still haven't addressed how you know how much money each area gets if they are not well defined.

Didn't consider this, actually, but I don't play NESes to learn, I play to win, but learn meanwhile. Same with EU2 (Even though that source isn't as good as a NES).

Is it England or Scotland which controls Newcastle, for example? At various points in British history, it was a territory near the border between the two with great economic import...but you've failed to cite where it is, and the numbers '3' and '6' (whatever '3' and '6' "eco points" mean, of course, but that's a whole other can of worms) do not really tell me either.

Well, Newscastle would of course be assigned whatever region it belongs to at the beginning at the NES. And again, 3 and 6 eco points was simplified, especially since neither of us have any idea about how BJ's default nation stats would look.

This also raises the question of what areas you've decided to group together. Economically integrated regions (if you can really claim such a thing to exist; perhaps economically 'unified'?...these things seem to be all too nebulous...) or political ones? If it is organized by political region, you can be sure that conquest will not provide you anything close to the revenue from the previous owner, and may alter the whole system in radical ways.

Actually the purpose would be to ruin the opponent's economy, not boon your own (I know I might have written other things and you are therefore allowed to quote me one that), so political regions would be just fine.

And, of course, there is the problem of accounting for trade, which will throw off the new estimates again. So an attempt at making region-based economic stats could even be misleading to the players.

I don't really think this is true. Simply because a powerful trade between two regions will lower both regions if one is attacked (probably), and the same with two nations, which is integrated in NESes already. However, if you do think that a modern NES shouldn't have national borders, then at that point I will be convinced.

In any event, the argument as it is seems pretty useless, since Birdjag has already acknowledged that he probably isn't going to put in the extra work for such little gain, but if you really want to the discussion can be continued in the development thread.

Actually, I have kinda given in on the subject and will leave the discussion here, since I don't think it would have enough support from the other players, and as I wouldn't like to ruin everyone else's game. :)

Birdjaguar
Dec 26, 2008, 02:32 PM
having time off work for the holidays ahs givenme the chance to furthr develop BirdNES 3. I have posted the most current list of stats with explanations for comments and suggestions. These would be the stats that are posted and not necessarily all the stats I would keep. My questions include:

Is this enough information to run a nation?
Are particualr stats that you'd like to see, missing?
Are any unnecessary ones? Why?
Are the short explanations generally clear?

Thanks.


BirdNES 3 is a game of both nations and regions. Just as the events in a nation can affect a region, the events taking place broadly in a region can affect the individual nations of that region. As this game begins the Christian nations of Europe are a region; the Ottoman Empire and Middle East is a region; the Indian subcontinent is a region; East Asia is a region; the known parts of sub-Saharan Africa are a region; and the unknown lands of the Americas are a region. Regional borders may change over time.

In this game nations & regions move along three broad tracks: production, weapons, and economic system. A nation’s progress along these tracks will affect game play in a variety of ways. Nations may make progress along one track without making progress along others.

Production—this represents how things are made. The further one moves along this track the greater the efficiencies and skill of those doing the production and the more advanced weapons and ships one can make. There are 9 levels of production. The first four are “Artisan” 1-4; the last five are “Manufacturing” 1-5

Weapons—weapons will vary from place to place and what weapons are available to a nation is determined by the Weapons Age in which the player finds himself. There are seven ages: Bronze, Iron, Imperial, Medieval, and Gunpowder 1-3. As this game begins all nations (probably) within a region will be in the same weapons age.

Economic System—this represents the dominant model used by the ruling powers in a nation. These economies are on a continuum that begins with “Command 4” on one end and Free Market (FM) 8 on the other. In between there are command 3,2,1, then FM 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7. As one moves from Command 4 towards FM 0 and then towards FM 8, free market tendencies and institutions become more and more evident. These free market elements may also affect other aspects of your nation and the game.

In this game there are both national stats and regional stats. National stats specifically apply to a nation and regional stats apply to the region as a whole and will generally be compiled in some fashion from national stats.

Two examples of National Stats:

Mayans/Birdjaguar
Ruler/Heir: Chan Balam/
Income/Treasury/Debt: 3/3/0
Income =Taxes+Tribute+Plunder: 3=0+2+1+0
GDPTax Base: 2=1+1
Stability: Weighted average of Faction scores
Army/Navy: 10000/0
Upkeep: National/Army/Navy: 6/3/0
Tax Rate/Efficiency/Corruption: 25%/60%/40%
Production State/Weapons Age: Artisan 3/Imperial (no metal)
Army: Melee/None/City Walls/Tactics
Navy: None/None/Shoreline Maps

France/Player 1
Ruler/Heir: Louis X/
Income/Treasury/Debt: 4/1/2
Income =Taxes+Tribute+Plunder: 3=2+1+1+0
GDPTax Base: 4=2+2
Stability: Weighted average of Faction scores
Army/Navy: 12000/50
Upkeep: National/Army/Navy: 6/3/1
Tax Rate/Efficiency/Corruption: 25%/60%/40%
Production State/Weapons Age: Artisan 4/Gun 1
Army Tech: Wheel Lock/Cast Iron Cannon/Star Forts/Command
Navy Tech: Galleon/Cannon Fire/Ocean Sailing


Income/Treasury/Debt: these three items show the financial status of your nation. Income is what you received that turn in the way of cash to spend, your treasury is the cash available from previous turns, and your debt is what you owe others. Income and Treasury added together are what you can spend without borrowing. Players may borrow money even if they have other funds available.

Income mainly comes from taxes, tribute and plunder. This line shows you your particular income sources for the turn. Gifts from other nations or other odd sources of money will show up as a fourth number.

GDPTax Base: Your GDPTax Base is the total value of your economy: domestic activity plus regional and overseas trade. This is the basis for tax collections. Your Tax Base will rise and fall during the game depending upon circumstances.

Stability: This number represents the overall stability your nation is based on the strength and loyalty of the various internal factions that are vying for power. Higher numbers are better. Particular faction details are separately. You cannot directly affect this score; you can only change it by changing the strength and loyalty of individual factions.

Army/Navy: these are the size of your army and navy in men and ships.

Upkeep: This is the cost of maintaining your nation and military. National upkeep is all of the government offices, infrastructure, Universities, roads, harbors etc. Army and Navy are the cost to keep your military fit for duty. Upkeep costs are generally a percent of what you have invested in them, so the more you do spend, the higher your upkeep will be. Government policy can change the rate at which upkeep is charged.

Tax Rate/Efficiency/Corruption: Player set tax rates will determine how much money is extracted from your people. Higher rates will also influence the strength and loyalty of the various factions in your nation. Tax efficiency is how good a job your tax collectors do in actually getting the money from people into the government coffers. If your tax rate is 50%, and your efficiency rate is also 50% then your actual rate for collecting is 50% of 50% or 25%. Policy and spending can influence this rate. Corruption is the percent of tax income that is skimmed away by the various factions after it has been collected. The stronger and more disloyal your factions, the higher your corruption rate.

Production State/Weapons Age: These two stats tell you what kind of production you are capable of and which Weapons Age you are in. Policies and spending can change your production state. Your Weapons Age is mostly a regional situation, but can be influenced by individual national spending.

The Army & Navy Tech stats tell you about your military tech levels. The Army line provides your best weapon, best artillery advancement, latest defense capability, and level of army leadership. For your Navy you see your most advanced ship design, the type of combat your navy uses and your latest navigational advancement. Details on each are explained in the rules below.

Stats not included in the examples above, but which would be:

Factions: factions are the various political or economic groups that can support or disrupt your nation’s stability. Each nation or region will have different types of factions. Each faction will have two values: its strength and its loyalty. By multiplying ‘strength’ times ‘loyalty’ you can get an estimate of the relative influence of a particular faction when compared to others. Peasant factions represent the overall mood of the peasants in your nation. Peasant dissatisfaction and rebellion can lead to severe disruption of your economy and lead to other factions becoming less loyal. Factions can also be influenced by other players who may want to contribute to them and their particular cause.

Maps & Charts: Here you will see a list of your explorations and trade routes.

Trading Forts: This number is the number of Trading Forts that you control. Trading Forts are an important source of overseas trade income. You pay to establish and support them.

Culture: This number represents your culture score and allows you to compare the strength and influence of your nation’s culture on those around you. Your culture is a combination of your investments in things Cultural and Educational, your GDP, and the loyalty of the factions vying for power in your nation.

Church/Religiously held lands: This number tells you how much of your nation is controlled by a religious group. It translates into economic wealth. For example, if France has 24% of its lands in the hands of the Catholic Church then, 24% of its GDP will go towards supporting the Pope and not the King. The more land dedicated to a religious group, the stronger that faction will be. Church lands will have a onetime “plunder” value for those kings that can’t abide sharing. Of course such takings will create resentment and bitterness among the losers.

Colonies are areas where you have established a population of settlers. Not every area can be colonized. This section will list your colonies and provide economic information about them.

Other possible stats for posting:
Area
Government type
Degree of centralization

Masada
Dec 26, 2008, 03:18 PM
One small note, GDP should be larger than state receipts, given that GDP calculations include government spending. Even allowing for the removal of Tribute and Plunder, your still looking at state receipts of 50% of GDP in the second example. I would also note that 25% is probably a touch to high for all of Europe around this period, state receipts at this stage normally accounted for around 10% of GDP [it varies, but it seldom creeps above 15%], the state apparatus, the taxation options available, and farming tend to predicate strongly against taxes running much higher. You will have examples where that was so, but often only with very strong caveats to the general rule.

Are there still going to be non-state entities?

Birdjaguar
Dec 26, 2008, 03:45 PM
One small note, GDP should be larger than state receipts, given that GDP calculations include government spending. Even allowing for the removal of Tribute and Plunder, your still looking at state receipts of 50% of GDP in the second example. I would also note that 25% is probably a touch to high for all of Europe around this period, state receipts at this stage normally accounted for around 10% of GDP [it varies, but it seldom creeps above 15%], the state apparatus, the taxation options available, and farming tend to predicate strongly against taxes running much higher. You will have examples where that was so, but often only with very strong caveats to the general rule.

Are there still going to be non-state entities?
My use for GDP is three fold:
1: Represent a comparative value between nations that could be tracked over time
2: Be the base against which taxes are calculated
3: Be used for various trade calculations

GDP may be the wrong name. As a GDP, it should probably include more than just the domestic and trade economies, but I am not really looking for true economic calculations here. I chose GDP because it was short and sufficiently precise to be interpreted as the total value of a nations economy in game terms. I guess I could call it "Tax Base".

Tax rates will be completely player determined and they will be able to influence collection efficiency and corruption.

I guess I could have a 'truer' GDP stat that included other items.

Yes, I do plan on having non nation entities, but those stats are not as fully formed yet. I'm still thinking about how distinctive they (the roles) should be or whether or not an entitiy should play multiple parts.

Bankers, Mercenary leaders, and trading company as three separate roles or three aspects of a single role.

Masada
Dec 26, 2008, 04:10 PM
GDP would be the wrong name. But what I'm trying to get at is this;

GDP: 4=2+2
Income =Taxes+Tribute+Plunder: 3=2+1+1+0

GDP=4
Taxes [presumably internal taxes]=2
Tax Rate/Efficiency/Corruption: 25%/60%/40%

So 4*.25=1*.60=0.6

Where does the 2 come from?

All I'm getting at is your GDP figure, or domestic economy+trade figure is way to low... I know you like black boxes, but why exactly is the "tax base" the same size as your presumably internal taxes. It just doesn't add up.

1: Represent a comparative value between nations that could be tracked over time
2: Be the base against which taxes are calculated
3: Be used for various trade calculations

I don't disagree with this, I just find the values a touch low for GDP relative to tax.

Tax rates will be completely player determined and they will be able to influence collection efficiency and corruption.

To make my point simply, for each % increase in taxation, your either doing it through one of two mechanisms, your taxing through incidentals, taxes on salt, wine etc. Or your taxing land or production, head taxes, land taxes etc. The first is damaging, but if you jack your rates up people will either substitute, cheat, or not bother with the product, you end up with some serious problems say if you jack up the price of salt, restrict supply and wonder why your population is beginning to die and your revenue is shrinking. Of particular harm however is land, or head taxes say you have Bob, Bob is a farmer, he has assets worth 400, an income per year on average of 50, and costs on average of 40. In good years he might make up to 70 in bad years he will sink down to 20. Taxation per year is 5 total, including both incidental and direct taxation. Now move that taxation up to 10 total per year, and he is stuck, he doesn't make money on average, in good years he still makes money, in bad years he either dips into his assets or sinks into debt, the periods of debt vs. plenty increase and he becomes bankrupt or starves to death. For each increase in taxation, you will see a decrease in the amount of land under cultivation, as people stop farming marginal land. Now you can argue that the King could tax via some sort of method whereby only the rich/well off/whatever were taxed, so Bob wouldn't be forced off the land. That's not practical, you either tax arbitrarily, or you don't really bother at all, you can work some redundancy into the system but even proportional takings of yields have problems, even diminishing ones. Short answer you can't tax to highly in primarily agricultural societies, if you do you drive people off the marginal land, decrease production and generally end up with some serious problems. There is a Laffer curve in effect here, its not terribly elastic, but as you increase taxation you will end up with proportionally less income as you go further up the taxation wedge. It will get very severe towards the top, unless your willing to absolutely utterly brutalize your people and allow them all to starve.

Birdjaguar
Dec 26, 2008, 04:39 PM
GDP would be the wrong name. But what I'm trying to get at is this;

GDP: 4=2+2
Income =Taxes+Tribute+Plunder: 3=2+1+1+0

GDP=4
Taxes [presumably internal taxes]=2
Tax Rate/Efficiency/Corruption: 25%/60%/40%

So 4*.25=1*.60=0.6

Where does the 2 come from? All the numbers in the sample stats are just made up and have no relatin to each oher or to any deeper game mechanic. In the game DE will be tied to agricultural and economic development. My assumptions are that in most cases economies were 90% agriculturally based.

All I'm getting at is your GDP figure, or domestic economy+trade figure is way to low... I know you like black boxes, but why exactly is the "tax base" the same size as your presumably internal taxes. It just doesn't add up.



I don't disagree with this, I just find the values a touch low for GDP relative to tax. See above.


To make my point simply, for each % increase in taxation, your either doing it through one of two mechanisms, your taxing through incidentals, taxes on salt, wine etc. Or your taxing land or production, head taxes, land taxes etc. The first is damaging, but if you jack your rates up people will either substitute, cheat, or not bother with the product, you end up with some serious problems say if you jack up the price of salt, restrict supply and wonder why your population is beginning to die and your revenue is shrinking. Of particular harm however is land, or head taxes say you have Bob, Bob is a farmer, he has assets worth 400, an income per year on average of 50, and costs on average of 40. In good years he might make up to 70 in bad years he will sink down to 20. Taxation per year is 5 total, including both incidental and direct taxation. Now move that taxation up to 10 total per year, and he is stuck, he doesn't make money on average, in good years he still makes money, in bad years he either dips into his assets or sinks into debt, the periods of debt vs. plenty increase and he becomes bankrupt or starves to death. For each increase in taxation, you will see a decrease in the amount of land under cultivation, as people stop farming marginal land. Now you can argue that the King could tax via some sort of method whereby only the rich/well off/whatever were taxed, so Bob wouldn't be forced off the land. That's not practical, you either tax arbitrarily, or you don't really bother at all, you can work some redundancy into the system but even proportional takings of yields have problems, even diminishing ones. Short answer you can't tax to highly in primarily agricultural societies, if you do you drive people off the marginal land, decrease production and generally end up with some serious problems. There is a Laffer curve in effect here, its not terribly elastic, but as you increase taxation you will end up with proportionally less income as you go further up the taxation wedge. It will get very severe towards the top, unless your willing to absolutely utterly brutalize your people and allow them all to starve.

All games need a way to generate spending for players. I like using a taxation model rather than counting cities etc. I agree with what you have said, but to keep it simple I am using only a tax base, a tax rate, a collection efficiency rate and then I've added corruption. If a player raises taxes too much, then it will affect the factions and increase corruption and discontent, especially among peasants. All that leads to instability. I am using that simple mix to deal with the more complex issues you raise which are more difficult to model.

Birdjaguar
Dec 26, 2008, 04:49 PM
1. No idea the difference between a command and a free economy. Sure I can research, find out.. just saying if I don't know, i'd bet a fair few others don't know either.Thanks, I will expalin in the rules.

2. Upkeep.. either your examples arn't "real" or I can't see how either nation can pay its upkeep! Its much higher than the combined economy! (France income 5, maint 9!) All numbers are made up and not based on an actual game calculation.

3. Ruler/Heir... what time scale are we playing at? I hope we arn't going to race through the ages, having to make up a new leader each order set? We playing a year a turn? 5 years?I am currently thinking 5 year turns.

4. Factions sounds a fun inclusion, and give each nation more levels of play (could even allow a player to take hold of one such faction if they want a rebellion/different style of play)Yes. You can thank das and North King for their inclusion.

5. Culture, meh, GUNS awe people, the idea my poety will cause the natives to join me has always seemed weakI will see if I can accommdate you!

6.Church/Religiously held lands: Nice, hidden unless becomes significant.. bump in with factions?Yes, this will impact factions. I mainly included this for European nations, but If appropriate, I will also add to other nations.

7.Area: Nah, map and corruption covers this
8.Government type.. bump in with title of leader? How many people actually play with different styles, how possible is it to change a nations style without serious problems anyway? If its not really viable to change about with this, don't need to show contantly in stats.Good thoughts.
9.Degree of centralization: I'm being dozy, but what does this mean in reality?It means how much control of the government is in the hands of the ruler. This would allow a player to include factions into powersharing arrangements to reduce their discontent perhaps.

Thanks!

The Strategos
Dec 27, 2008, 09:57 AM
As this game begins the Christian nations of Europe are a region; the Ottoman Empire and Middle East is a region; the Indian subcontinent is a region; East Asia is a region; the known parts of sub-Saharan Africa are a region; and the unknown lands of the Americas are a region. Regional borders may change over time.

You left out N. Africa. Probably would be best to have it with Middle East.


Production—this represents how things are made. The further one moves along this track the greater the efficiencies and skill of those doing the production and the more advanced weapons and ships one can make. There are 9 levels of production. The first four are “Artisan” 1-4; the last five are “Manufacturing” 1-5

Can you give us a rough idea of what we can expect from each level? For example, when can a country start producing cannons; when is a country in an “industrial revolution?”

Weapons—weapons will vary from place to place and what weapons are available to a nation is determined by the Weapons Age in which the player finds himself. There are seven ages: Bronze, Iron, Imperial, Medieval, and Gunpowder 1-3. As this game begins all nations (probably) within a region will be in the same weapons age.

Misleading and useless. Misleading because the categories speak of nothing in real world terms. For example, what is the difference between “Iron,” “Imperial,” and “Medieval” or between Gunpowder 1, 2, and 3? You seem to see the failure of the categories in your Native American example where you give a category (Imperial) and then are forced to reinterpret that category by adding “no metal.” Useless because as far as I can tell, the production stat and military tech stat give a better understanding of what this stat is trying to portray.

The Army & Navy Tech stats tell you about your military tech levels. The Army line provides your best weapon, best artillery advancement, latest defense capability, and level of army leadership. For your Navy you see your most advanced ship design, the type of combat your navy uses and your latest navigational advancement. Details on each are explained in the rules below.

If you are going to the work of listing out some of these things, it would be better just to go ahead and call it “Army and Navy Description” stat. Then you can list things like “Lance equipped heavy cavalry as dominant arm supported by majority pike infantry and mix of crossbow and gunmen; siege cannons.” It gives more useful and accurate information and as militaries are unlikely to change much over the time period, the majority of the work is frontloaded (and can be done by the player themselves), requiring little maintenance.

Church/Religiously held lands: This number tells you how much of your nation is controlled by a religious group. It translates into economic wealth. For example, if France has 24% of its lands in the hands of the Catholic Church then, 24% of its GDP will go towards supporting the Pope and not the King. The more land dedicated to a religious group, the stronger that faction will be. Church lands will have a onetime “plunder” value for those kings that can’t abide sharing. Of course such takings will create resentment and bitterness among the losers.


Wishful thinking, but is there anyway to make this more subtle than “if France has 24% of its lands in the hands of the Catholic Church then, 24% of its tax base will go towards supporting the Pope and not the King.” For example, if the Church owned 24% of a land but it was Siberia, then you are not going to get 24% of a country’s tax base. Likewise if you own only 1% but that 1% contains all the riches cities, you are going to get more than 1% of a country’s tax base.

sp1023
Dec 27, 2008, 10:29 AM
Wishful thinking, but is there anyway to make this more subtle than “if France has 24% of its lands in the hands of the Catholic Church then, 24% of its tax base will go towards supporting the Pope and not the King.” For example, if the Church owned 24% of a land but it was Siberia, then you are not going to get 24% of a country’s tax base. Likewise if you own only 1% but that 1% contains all the riches cities, you are going to get more than 1% of a country’s tax base.

Agreed, how about however % of a country's economy is held within the Church's power, the church get's that % of taxes... Siberia would be like 2%, unless Russia could of course utilize the oil fields. Paris and Bordauex might be like 10% so that would be a few billion dollars to the church. :D

Birdjaguar
Dec 27, 2008, 01:50 PM
@The Strategos: I am working on a reply.

Birdjaguar
Dec 27, 2008, 02:52 PM
Thanks, Strategos. The idea behind my stat choices is to provide sufficient information to players to make informed decisions and to easily compare themselves to others. Because in 1500 player nations will span from very primitive to very sophisticated societies, I have to accommodate them all. Necessarily, many stats are pretty high level (even if the description is specific). The Production level stat tracks “actual capability”; the Weapons Age stats track “potential when matched with the correct level of capability”.


Can you give us a rough idea of what we can expect from each level? For example, when can a country start producing cannons; when is a country in an “industrial revolution?”
I have Production Levels and Weapons Ages as separate, but related paths. If you reach Artisan 3 and have knowledge of steel, you enter the Medieval Weapons Age. In that age you can make and use any medieval type of weapon, plus research gallasses, bombards, arquebus. With further progress you can reach Artisan 4 production and open the door to Gunpowder 1 weapons age: matchlocks, wheel locks, cast iron cannon, and useful gun carriages. But to fully utilize the opportunities of Gunpowder 1, you must make advances beyond Artisan 4 production. I have also had to accommodate for the effect of contact with a technologically superior nation. Knowledge of matchlocks and cannon does not give you the capability to produce them.

While this may seem needlessly complicated from a player standpoint, as a mod, I need this or some other structure to make sure I know what is going on and who is where. I’m not sure players need all the details on how it works. That is why I listed “most advanced” weapon/ship type available. In 1500 all the major nations will be at artisan 4 or better and using bombards & arquebuses.

Earlier in this thread there was some discussion about posting a detailed tech tree and most who responded felt it was unnecessary.


Misleading and useless. Misleading because the categories speak of nothing in real world terms. For example, what is the difference between “Iron,” “Imperial,” and “Medieval” or between Gunpowder 1, 2, and 3? You seem to see the failure of the categories in your Native American example where you give a category (Imperial) and then are forced to reinterpret that category by adding “no metal.” Useless because as far as I can tell, the production stat and military tech stat give a better understanding of what this stat is trying to portray. The Weapons Age stat could be dropped if the specifics about what can be produced are clearly stated elsewhere. I have it as part of the posted list because it is a familiar benchmark for players and a nation that is still medieval has a pretty clear relationship to one that is in gunpowder 2. The Weapons Age describes the broad scope of your warfare options while the production level defines the specifics. Gunpowder 3 enables a nation to produce percussion cap muskets, but to actually do so you must also be at a specific level of manufacturing capability.


If you are going to the work of listing out some of these things, it would be better just to go ahead and call it “Army and Navy Description” stat. Then you can list things like “Lance equipped heavy cavalry as dominant arm supported by majority pike infantry and mix of crossbow and gunmen; siege cannons.” It gives more useful and accurate information and as militaries are unlikely to change much over the time period, the majority of the work is frontloaded (and can be done by the player themselves), requiring little maintenance. Good idea.


Wishful thinking, but is there any way to make this more subtle than “if France has 24% of its lands in the hands of the Catholic Church then, 24% of its tax base will go towards supporting the Pope and not the King.” For example, if the Church owned 24% of a land but it was Siberia, then you are not going to get 24% of a country’s tax base. Likewise if you own only 1% but that 1% contains all the riches cities, you are going to get more than 1% of a country’s tax base.You are correct, but churches rarely got just the crappy land or just the best pieces. I have to assume land controlled is “average in value” unless a player specifies something different at which time I would make an accommodation. BTW, all such lands will have an upkeep cost that will come into play. Historically, I think, the church in Western Europe controlled 20-30% of land under cultivation. The power of the Church was not too subtle in 1500 and its hold over land was important. There was economic motive to taking control over and plundering Catholic holdings. I am open to suggestions though

Angst
Dec 27, 2008, 03:02 PM
You are correct, but churches rarely got just the crappy land or just the best pieces. I have to assume land controlled is “average in value” unless a player specifies something different at which time I would make an accommodation. BTW, all such lands will have an upkeep cost that will come into play. Historically, I think, the church in Western Europe controlled 20-30% of land under cultivation. The power of the Church was not too subtle in 1500 and its hold over land was important. There was economic motive to taking control over and plundering Catholic holdings. I am open to suggestions though

Actually, it isn't really that important how much land the church controls, but rather how much wealth they control, therefore simply changing the word 'area' to 'wealth' would be sufficient in my eyes. Hence the 'The Church Controls Siberia' problem.

Birdjaguar
Dec 27, 2008, 03:10 PM
Actually, it isn't really that important how much land the church controls, but rather how much wealth they control, therefore simply changing the word 'area' to 'wealth' would be sufficient in my eyes. Hence the 'The Church Controls Siberia' problem.
You are correct, but in game terms I need a way to quantify that wealth. Using "Church owned lands" seems a easy fit with the rest of my model and it allows for faction negotiations and actions that reflect some real life activities. The Church lands will generate wealth that will show up in the coffers of the Pope, wealth the he will be able to use to increase his influence and power.

If you have another way to quantify church wealth other than land and taxes, I would like to hear it.

Angst
Dec 27, 2008, 03:21 PM
To be honest, I have no idea right now, but I'll post something if I realize anything.

sp1023
Dec 27, 2008, 03:32 PM
You are correct, but in game terms I need a way to quantify that wealth. Using "Church owned lands" seems a easy fit with the rest of my model and it allows for faction negotiations and actions that reflect some real life activities. The Church lands will generate wealth that will show up in the coffers of the Pope, wealth the he will be able to use to increase his influence and power.

If you have another way to quantify church wealth other than land and taxes, I would like to hear it.

Intrude: How about the amount of people in the nation that believe strongly in the church, maybe they could follow and be loyal to the church instead of the nation. Strong catholic nations (Like Spain) would send a lot of aid and money to the church. Whereas the protestants of England would send threats… :D

Birdjaguar
Dec 27, 2008, 03:45 PM
Intrude: How about the amount of people in the nation that believe strongly in the church, maybe they could follow and be loyal to the church instead of the nation. Strong catholic nations (Like Spain) would send a lot of aid and money to the church. Whereas the protestants of England would send threats… :DThe European religious wars are complicated and I am going to try to track % of population or something to show the strength of the religious factions in a nation. Strong factions will have to be appeased or "dealt with" by rulers.

I need to keep political affiliation and support separate from the church's economic base which was considerable. Church lands in Spain provided wealth to Rome independent of the current attitude of the King.

North King
Dec 27, 2008, 04:06 PM
The church had more than just lands and tithes, though. They had considerable donations and such which I would think were somewhat consistent: it thus doesn't exactly correlate with "lands". I think just tracking church wealth is a better idea.

Birdjaguar
Dec 27, 2008, 05:10 PM
The church had more than just lands and tithes, though. They had considerable donations and such which I would think were somewhat consistent: it thus doesn't exactly correlate with "lands". I think just tracking church wealth is a better idea.
For me the question is how does adding complexity to the issue produce additional play value? Whether the stat is called lands or wealth does not matter; But if wealth is a multi input number, then those inputs need to have play value and not just add to the work load.

Do you see Church Wealth as a stat in each nation or just Rome?

If you are measuring "church wealth" in each nation through multiple dimensions (lands, tithes, donations etc) then in game terms I need to be able to easily adjust each as the game progresses and show what happens if a nation goes Protestant. What ahppens to the fixed values and what happens to the variable values.

Tithes is good, but what would it be based on? Population %? Some fixed (10%?) amount of the nation's income? If a nation no longer supports Rome do the tithes go to the king, or disappear? Can the Pope raise tithing? If he does, does it take money from the king? Each input needs its own set of rules and guides. If the play value is high, complexity can be worth it. :)

North King
Dec 27, 2008, 05:52 PM
I don't think this particular complexity helps play value. I just think church lands is a misnomer for an income penalty.

Birdjaguar
Dec 27, 2008, 06:00 PM
I don't think this particular complexity helps play value. I just think church lands is a misnomer for an income penalty.I'm confused. Which complexity lacks play value and what is the income penalty you mention?

sp1023
Dec 27, 2008, 06:03 PM
Do we really need church lands?

The Strategos
Dec 27, 2008, 06:17 PM
The Weapons Age stat could be dropped if the specifics about what can be produced are clearly stated elsewhere. I have it as part of the posted list because it is a familiar benchmark for players and a nation that is still medieval has a pretty clear relationship to one that is in gunpowder 2. The Weapons Age describes the broad scope of your warfare options while the production level defines the specifics. Gunpowder 3 enables a nation to produce percussion cap muskets, but to actually do so you must also be at a specific level of manufacturing capability.


I have no problem with you doing what you are doing, I have a problem with your non-intuitive way of showing the player what you are doing. Your labels in weapons age, especially the label “Imperial,” are so vague that they impart no worthwhile information to the player. Either don’t show the player the categories or somewhere define what exactly you mean with your categories, so that they actually have a use in imparting information. If you choose the first, obviously the categories only have to make sense for you, if you choose the second option, I think when you begin listing what you intend your categories to mean, you will find your current labels could be improved.

The church had more than just lands and tithes, though. They had considerable donations and such which I would think were somewhat consistent: it thus doesn't exactly correlate with "lands". I think just tracking church wealth is a better idea.

The amount of tithes and regular donations which made it to Rome at this time was an exceedingly small percentage of papal income, small enough that it can safely be reckoned as zero percent of church income. “Secular” fiscal measures in church controlled lands (relatively stable source of funds) and the selling of various church posts (flexible source of funds) represented the bulk of papal income.

Birdjaguar
Dec 27, 2008, 06:29 PM
Do we really need church lands?
In 16th C Europe much of the wealth of the catholic church was in its land holdings. The idea of having such a stat or a similar one for church wealth comes from the game play idea of having a religious role for a Pope player. It goes hand in hand with the idea of internal factions in each nation. In Europe a catholic faction supported by the Pope can have a significant affect on game play. That catholic faction would be supported in part by the wealth of the church in that nation. To over simplify: Piss off the Pope and he gets his faction working against the king. Piss of the king too much and he throws the church out and confiscates the churches holdings and wealth.

Birdjaguar
Dec 27, 2008, 06:33 PM
I have no problem with you doing what you are doing, I have a problem with your non-intuitive way of showing the player what you are doing. Your labels in weapons age, especially the label “Imperial,” are so vague that they impart no worthwhile information to the player. Either don’t show the player the categories or somewhere define what exactly you mean with your categories, so that they actually have a use in imparting information. If you choose the first, obviously the categories only have to make sense for you, if you choose the second option, I think when you begin listing what you intend your categories to mean, you will find your current labels could be improved.
Ok, that makes sense. Thanks.

sp1023
Dec 27, 2008, 06:39 PM
In 16th C Europe much of the wealth of the catholic church was in its land holdings. The idea of having such a stat or a similar one for church wealth comes from the game play idea of having a religious role for a Pope player. It goes hand in hand with the idea of internal factions in each nation. In Europe a catholic faction supported by the Pope can have a significant affect on game play. That catholic faction would be supported in part by the wealth of the church in that nation. To over simplify: Piss off the Pope and he gets his faction working against the king. Piss of the king too much and he throws the church out and confiscates the churches holdings and wealth.

Oh, now it makes sense. But wouldn't that lead to the church excommunicating the king and then destroying his nation economically, thus making him cave into the pressure?

alex994
Dec 27, 2008, 06:47 PM
Oh, now it makes sense. But wouldn't that lead to the church excommunicating the king and then destroying his nation economically, thus making him cave into the pressure?

Doesn't always work; see Henry VIII of England :p

Birdjaguar
Dec 27, 2008, 06:53 PM
Oh, now it makes sense. But wouldn't that lead to the church excommunicating the king and then destroying his nation economically, thus making him cave into the pressure?

Doesn't always work; see Henry VIII of England :pYes, that is the idea. thanks Alex.

Birdjaguar
Jan 05, 2009, 09:12 PM
How do you all feel about the units of spending?

Do you prefer smaller amounts that do alot like the typical EP or IC?

Or how about if you had 10,000 or 20,000 gold that could be spent in unts as small as 500?

What other units might be worth considering for a game taking place in 1500?

North King
Jan 05, 2009, 09:47 PM
Or how about if you had 10,000 or 20,000 gold that could be spent in unts as small as 500?

What? How is that functionally different from having 20 or 40 points, if you can only spend in increments of 500?

I think my answer for preferred spending method is probably answered with a glance at my NES' spending rules.

Birdjaguar
Jan 05, 2009, 10:15 PM
What? How is that functionally different from having 20 or 40 points, if you can only spend in increments of 500?

I think my answer for preferred spending method is probably answered with a glance at my NES' spending rules.Functionally, they are the same, but in flavor they are very different. Having 10 EP to spend creates a certain feel to the game. Having 10,000 gold to spend is a bit different.

Some people may feel that large numbers are bulky and unnecessary, others may prefer it. Pillaging or spending gold ducats creates a different feel than EP or IC.

I'll go look at your game and see what you choose.

Edit: I see you choose big units. :goodjob: And I was unclear in my post. 500 would be the minimum you can spend and the increment would be 50. So 500 , 550, 600 etc. up to 20,000 or what ever the top is.

North King
Jan 05, 2009, 11:05 PM
Well, since, if I recall correctly, you use decimals in your black box fairly easily, just let them spend the single piece. Alternatively, display it as something like 200 hundreds of gold or something silly. Make the number actually mean something. :p

Birdjaguar
Jan 05, 2009, 11:20 PM
Well, since, if I recall correctly, you use decimals in your black box fairly easily, just let them spend the single piece. Alternatively, display it as something like 200 hundreds of gold or something silly. Make the number actually mean something. :p

My use of decimals makes 50 unit increments very easy :D. I was actually thinking about using "gold ducats" or something similar as the unit and letting the totals run into the tens of thousands. Using 500 as a floor keeps the number of transactions more controlled.

Now in China, silver was the metal of choice, so I could have Asian spending be based in silver. Anyone know the name of a large unit of Chinese silver currency? Alex?

What was used in the middle east?

Azale
Jan 05, 2009, 11:28 PM
The tael is the Chinese currency your thinking of I think.

North King
Jan 05, 2009, 11:29 PM
"Pounds of silver" is pretty universal.

Dachs
Jan 06, 2009, 12:37 AM
Now in China, silver was the metal of choice, so I could have Asian spending be based in silver. Anyone know the name of a large unit of Chinese silver currency? Alex?
BananaLee also would be a fine expert to query on this matter. Since he has made some scholarly inquiries into Chinese economic matters of that period. :p
What was used in the middle east?
The akçe for the Ottomans.

Birdjaguar
Jan 06, 2009, 11:12 PM
The akçe for the Ottomans.

A silver coin, the akçe was the chief monetary unit of the Ottoman Empire. Three akçes were equal to one para. One-hundred and twenty akçes equaled one kuruş. Later the kuruş became the main unit of account, replacing the akçe. In 1843, the silver kuruş was joined by the gold lira in a bimetallic system.[1]

The Suleiman Mosque in Istanbul is said to have cost 59 million akçe when it was constructed in the 1550s. This amount is said to have equaled 700,000 ducats in gold (probably Venetian).

Tael currency

Traditional Chinese silver sycees and other currencies of fine metals were not denominated or made by a central mint and their value was determined by their weight in taels. They were made by individual silversmiths for local exchange, and as such the shape and amount of extra detail on each ingot were highly variable; square and oval shapes were common but "boat", flower, tortoise and others are known. The local tael also took precedence over any central measure, so the Canton tael weighed 37.5g, the Convention or Shanghai tael was 33.9 g (1.09 oz troy), and the Customs or Hǎiguān (海關) tael 37.8 g (defined as 11⁄3 oz avoirdupois, about 1.22 oz troy). The conversion rates between various common taels were well known. The tael was still the basis of the silver currency and sycee remained in use until the end of the Qing Dynasty. Common weights were 50 tael, 10 tael, and 5 down to 1.

Historical value

Modern studies suggest that, on purchasing power parity basis, one tael of silver was worth about 4130 modern Chinese yuan in the early Tang Dynasty, 2065 in the late Tang Dynasty, and 660.8 in the mid Ming Dynasty.


The ducat is a gold coin that was used as a trade currency throughout Europe before World War I. Its weight is 3.4909 grams of .986 gold, which is 0.1107 troy ounce, AGW, actual gold weight.

The first issue of this coin is thought to have been under Roger II of Sicily, who, in 1140, coined ducats bearing the figure of Christ, and the inscription, 'Sit tibi, Christe, datus, quem tu regis iste ducatus' (or roughly, "O Christ, let this duchy which you rule be dedicated to you." This seems to be a reference to Matthew 22:19-21).

The ducat was introduced by the Republic of Venice in 1284 under the doge Giovanni Dandolo (1280-1289). The Venetian ducat, called zecchino, featured the Doge kneeling before St. Mark on the obverse and Jesus on the reverse. During the Middle Ages the ducat gained much popularity, as it was easy to mint, and packed quite a value in one relatively small coin.

Ducats became a standard gold coin throughout Europe, especially after it was officially imperially sanctioned in 1566. The ducat remained sanctioned until 1857. To make it more confusing there was also a silver ducat minted in many European nations.

I'm not sure I want to run three different currencies, but it would be interesting, if not too confusing.

Birdjaguar
Jan 16, 2009, 08:12 PM
Rules for BirdNES 3 are coming along nicely

Sample stats. Please do not try to make the numbers add up; some are just plugs. Income is shown in an Eco Point equivalent; that may change in the final version to thousands of gold ducats. You may comment and make suggestions on anything in the post. Trade, maps, colonies are still sufficiently unfinished to include any details here.

Mayans/Birdjaguar
Ruler/Heir: Chan Balam/
Initiative/Prestige/Culture: 4/6/0
Income/Treasury/Debt: 11/1/2
Taxes+Tribute+Plunder: 9+1+1+0
Economy/Trade: 66/9
Stability/Policies Permitted: 3.4/2
Army/Navy Size: 10000/130
Upkeep: National/Army/Navy 2/1/2
Army Description: Arquebus/2-Bombards/5-Fortifications/6-Maneuver
Navy Description: Gallasses/Ramming & Boarding/6-Ocean Sailing
D-tax/T-Tax/Efficiency/Corruption: 30%/10%/63%/27%
Production Skill: Artisan 3
Religion/Church Wealth: Catholic/6
Useful Discoveries: Printing press
Maps & Charts
Trade Routes
Colonies
Factions: Loyalty/Size/Influence
Ruler: 5/2/15
Bureaucracy: 4/4/19
Religion: -1/5/-6
Land owners: 5/5/26
Generals: 4/2/13
Peasants: -3/8/-26

Stat List Explanations:

Initiative/Prestige/Culture: These three stats position your nation on the world stage, and are important for different reasons. Of the three, Initiative Points are the most important

Initiative Points: these points control how active you can be during a given turn. They represent the capability (willingness?) of your government to carry out what you command. Initiative points are limited and you cannot spend more than you have. They replenish each turn, but the recalculation could change the number you have available from turn to turn based on a variety of circumstances. Not every action consumes Initiative Pints (IP). They cannot be banked.

Actions that will cost IP:
• Add or change a policy
• Declare war on a nation (3 nations, 3 points)
• Acting against a faction in your nation
• Start a project
• Buy troops or ships
• Change religion
• Set up espionage in a foreign nation
• Launch an exploration expedition
• Start a Colony

Things that will not cost IP:
• Any spending internally not mentioned above
• Borrowing money or paying debts
• Supporting factions in your nation or other nations
• Defending if attacked

Now, if you choose to enact something that requires IP and you do not have them to spend, then you may do so, but you can expect unintended consequences.

Prestige: Prestige is a measure of your nation’s accomplishments. Your successes add to it and your failures detract from it. The most important impact of prestige on game play is that it encourages factional loyalty in spite of political differences. Discoveries, exploration, projects, conquests, wealth, tribute, etc. all contribute to the level of your nation’s prestige. Be aware, that a lack of prestige can strengthen your enemies and encourage disloyalty.

Culture: This number represents your culture score and allows you to compare the strength and influence of your nation’s culture on those around you. Your culture is a combination of your investments in things cultural and educational whether they are institutions, practices or related to particular items. A strong culture can be influential in overseas colonies or on sympathetic factions in neighboring nations.

Income/Treasury/Debt: these three items show the financial status of your nation. Income is what you received that turn in the way of cash to spend, your treasury is the cash available from previous turns, and your debt is what you owe others. Income and Treasury added together are what you can spend without borrowing. Players may borrow money even if they have other funds available.

Income mainly comes from taxes, tribute and plunder. This line shows you your particular income sources for the turn. Gifts from other nations or other odd sources of money will show up as a fourth number.

Economy/Trade: Your economy is the value of your domestic activity,; Trade that of regional and overseas trade. These numbers are the basis for tax collections. Your economy will rise and fall during the game depending upon circumstances.

Stability: This number represents the overall stability your nation and is based on the strength and loyalty of the various internal factions that are vying for power and influence. Higher numbers are better. Particular faction details are listed separately. You cannot directly affect this score; you can only change it by changing the strength and loyalty of individual factions.

Policies: policies are broad efforts to shape aspects of your nation. A nation can have a policy about religious tolerance (or not), or land ownership, or trade, or education, or just about anything. Policies can be changed every turn and each nation can have only as many policies as shown in this stat. Policies can have a big effect on the various factions in your nation; in fact, not having a policy about an important matter can have an impact. Policies are considered “in effect” until replaced. Allowing the Inquisition to operate in your nation would be a policy, as would, depriving peasants of land ownership. It costs IP to implement or change a policy.

Army/Navy Size: these are the sizes of your army and navy in men and ships. The makeup of your forces is unspecified and players may establish that mix when they write orders. These numbers do not include routine garrisons which are assumed to be in place at all key locations. Expanding your army or navy costs IP.

Upkeep: This is the cost of maintaining your nation and military. National upkeep is all of the government offices, infrastructure, universities, roads, harbors etc. Army and Navy are the cost to keep your military fit for duty. Upkeep costs are generally based on how many troops and ships you have, so the larger your military, the higher your upkeep will be. Government policy can change the rate at which upkeep is charged.

The Army & Navy Descriptions tell you about your military compared to other nations. The Army line provides your commonly used weapons, city defenses, and level of army leadership. For your Navy you see your most advanced ship design, the type of combat your navy uses and your latest navigational advancement. Details on each are explained in the rules below.

Tax Rates/Efficiency/Corruption: Player-set tax rates for domestic collection and trade will determine how much money is extracted from your people. Higher rates will also influence the loyalty of the various factions in your nation. Tax efficiency is how good a job your tax collectors do in actually getting the money from people into the government coffers. If your tax rate is 50%, and your efficiency rate is also 50% then your actual rate for collecting is 50% of 50% or 25%. Policy and spending can influence this rate. Corruption is the percent of tax income that is skimmed away by the various factions. The stronger and more disloyal your factions, the higher your corruption rate will be.

Production Skill: This stat tells you what kind of production you are capable of. Policies and spending can change your production state. Production skill ranges from Artisan 1 to Artisan 4 and then from manufacturing 1 through manufacturing 5. The different levels convey different abilities and can affect the cost of things.

Religion: Your nation’s primary religious affiliation will be listed here as well as in the faction list. Other religions of significance may also be shown in the factions list. Players may change their religious affiliation, but doing so may have other affects.

Church Wealth: This number estimates the current plunder value of the dominant religion in your nation. This is the wealth that supports the primary church faction in your nation and, of course, taking that wealth, or a portion of it, will create resentment and bitterness among the faithful.

Useful Discoveries: As this game progresses your nation may make discoveries that are useful. Such discoveries may affect other aspects of the game and your prestige. They will be listed here. In other cases you will learn from your neighbors

Maps & Charts: Here you will see a list of your explorations. Nations must have charted an area to establish a trading fort or colony. Maps and charts are detailed records of voyages and cannot be sold or passed along to other players until a nation has the necessary nautical skills to do so. Such an event would be noted in the “Useful Discoveries” stat.

Trade Routes: This is a list of the trade routes in which your nation is participating and which contribute to your trade economy. As your trading network expands, this list grows. Generally, water trade routes are developed though exploration and the use of Trading Forts in distant lands. Overland routes are opened through explorers or merchant expeditions depending upon whether or not the expedition is into “known” or “unknown” lands. Typically, regional trade is expanded by establishing merchants in important trading centers. See below for more details on trade.

Trading Forts: These are your contact points for connecting to distant areas of trading activity. Trading Forts are an important source of overseas trade income. You pay to establish and support them.

Colonies: are areas where you have established a population of settlers. Not every area can be colonized. This section will list your colonies and provide economic information about them.

Factions: factions are the various political or economic groups that can support or disrupt your nation’s stability. Each nation or region will have different types of factions. Each faction will have two values: its size and its loyalty. “Size” and “Loyalty” are combined with other things to show its” Influence”. Peasant factions represent the overall mood of the peasants in your nation. Peasant dissatisfaction and rebellion can lead to severe disruption of your economy and lead to other factions becoming less loyal. Factions can also be influenced by other players who may want to contribute to them and their particular cause at your expense.

Loyalty is measured from -5 to +5
Size is measured from 0 to 10
Influence is a combination that can range from positive (good) to negative (not so good)

The factions listed below are just examples and pretty generic. Players will be able to fine tune factions to fit more closely with the nature of their nation.

• Ruler—those leaders and nobles who are ardent supports of the current ruler. Such a faction is likely to be rather small, but strongly loyal.
• Bureaucracy—a nation with an entrenched bureaucracy (like China) will likely have such a faction. It could be large and important.
• Religion—catholic, protestant, Buddhist, whatever. At some point European nations will likely have at least 2 religious factions. Religious factions can be large or small and can change size with some speed if the call of god comes to them.
• Land owners—wealthy lords who control lots of land from which they draw power. They might not like the idea of distributing land to peasants.
• Generals—in a military society, the army might play a strong role in politics and deserve its own faction. In most cases this will be a small group.
• Peasants—every nation will have a peasant faction. This one will be large and when they get upset, prone to causing trouble.

Comments welcome!

Birdjaguar
Jan 16, 2009, 08:22 PM
If you are interested in playing this game based on a start date of about 1490 AD, you may request a nation by doing the following:

Post your request in this thread and inlcude
--The nation name (any from the period are acceptable)
--List 3-5 factions that you think are appropriate for that nation. A Ruler faction and peasants should be among them.

Such a post will not guarantee you that choice, but it puts you in good standing for it.

There will be a Papal player with slightly different rules. If you would like to play a banker/mercenary broker, please post that interest. I need to see if there is sufficient support to develop that role.

Thanks.

Firm requests for nations so far:
Spain: Lucky moose
France: The Strategos
Teutonic Knights: Dachs
China: Azale
Denmark (Kalmar Union): Lord Joakim
Austria: Fantasmo
Moscow: das
England: Lightfang
Hungary: Qoou
Brandenburg: Bombshoo

Non Nation Roles:
European Banker: Masada
Pope: Available

Tenative Interest:
Mameluke Egypt: Sp1023 & Abaddon
Portugal: Abaddon

Luckymoose
Jan 16, 2009, 08:25 PM
Castile, Aragon, Leon:

Ruler (House of Trastamara)
Nobility (wealthy, christian landowners)
Catholicism (the church)
Muslims
Peasants


No idea if that's what you mean or not.

Birdjaguar
Jan 16, 2009, 08:31 PM
Spain:

Ruler
Catholic
Peasants


No idea if that's what you mean or not.That is the basics. Now would there be any other factions that are appropriate? Was the inquisition in play in 1490? If so would that be a group to include? Were the Hapsburgs connected to the Spanish throne yet? Might they be a group? If not now, maybe later.

I want players to think about their nation and what was going on internally. Factions are subject to change over time. Also, if you (or anyone) has ideas about factions for other requested nations please post your ideas.

It would be helpful to try and be a bit more descriptive of who the "ruler" faction might be. In Spain in 1490, the moors were still in Granada and Isabella and Ferdinand not quite in total control. You could even find a better name for them.

Dachs
Jan 16, 2009, 08:42 PM
Application:

The Order of the Teutonic Knights of St. Mary's Hospital in Jerusalem (Teutonic Order)

Factions:
Grandmaster (Johann von Tiefen) and Knights
Prussian burghers and assorted middle class
Prussian gentry
Catholic clergy

It should be noted that by this time, the native Prussians, Wends, etc. have largely been subsumed and Germanized. (This being one of the primary causes of the Thirteen Years' War of a few decades ago.) Also, the Teutonic Order does have title to Livonia, but to all intents and purposes for the last sixty years that territory has been lost to Königsberg, since that branch of the Order currently forms part of the Livonian Confederation. So it's just Prussia, really, that the Grandmaster has under his sway, not the "full" Teutonic possessions.

Birdjaguar
Jan 16, 2009, 08:46 PM
Application:

The Order of the Teutonic Knights of St. Mary's Hospital in Jerusalem (Teutonic Order)

Factions:
Grandmaster (Johann von Tiefen) and Knights
Prussian burghers and assorted middle class
Prussian gentry
Catholic clergy

It should be noted that by this time, the native Prussians, Wends, etc. have largely been subsumed and Germanized. (This being one of the primary causes of the Thirteen Years' War of a few decades ago.) Also, the Teutonic Order does have title to Livonia, but to all intents and purposes for the last sixty years that territory has been lost to Königsberg, since that branch of the Order currently forms part of the Livonian Confederation. So it's just Prussia, really, that the Grandmaster has under his sway, not the "full" Teutonic possessions.Thanks.

Which lands on this map?

http://www.maparchive.org/details.php?image_id=1021&sessionid=cfb5efa7a5d4b841decb84fe53b

sp1023
Jan 16, 2009, 08:47 PM
Does the Ottoman Empire exist? Or the Byzantine Empire?

EDIT: Damn, crossposted. Thanks for the map, BJ.

Dachs
Jan 16, 2009, 08:49 PM
Thanks.

Which lands on this map?

http://www.maparchive.org/details.php?image_id=1021&sessionid=cfb5efa7a5d4b841decb84fe53b
The southern half of the "German Order" lands is more or less directly controlled (the Teutonic Order in Prussia does so however as a vassal of the king of Poland) and the northern part, the Livonian section, has considerable autonomy and has formed a separate Confederation. You could (maybe even should :D) include them in the Teutonic Order's stats, and legally the Teutonic Order does control those territories, but most of the internal Livonian affairs are run by the dudes over there.

EDIT: sp1023, remember this year: 1453. Symbolically important stuff happened in that year. Turks got Constantinople and the French won at Castillon.

Birdjaguar
Jan 16, 2009, 08:54 PM
Does the Ottoman Empire exist? Or the Byzantine Empire?Its the Ottoman Empire and it will be a challenge to play. the Pope will likely stir up Christian hatred against it and the Persians will challenge it from the east. I'm not sure I could recommend you take it. Persia might be better; or Egypt if you want the middle east.

Luckymoose
Jan 16, 2009, 08:55 PM
That is the basics. Now would there be any other factions that are appropriate? Was the inquisition in play in 1490? If so would that be a group to include? Were the Hapsburgs connected to the Spanish throne yet? Might they be a group? If not now, maybe later.

I want players to think about their nation and what was going on internally. Factions are subject to change over time. Also, if you (or anyone) has ideas about factions for other requested nations please post your ideas.

It would be helpful to try and be a bit more descriptive of who the "ruler" faction might be. In Spain in 1490, the moors were still in Granada and Isabella and Ferdinand not quite in total control. You could even find a better name for them.


I can expand on that, it will take a little research though.

sp1023
Jan 16, 2009, 08:55 PM
Yes, I was thinking of Egypt, as a mameluke faction or something.

Birdjaguar
Jan 16, 2009, 08:57 PM
The southern half of the "German Order" lands is more or less directly controlled (the Teutonic Order in Prussia does so however as a vassal of the king of Poland) and the northern part, the Livonian section, has considerable autonomy and has formed a separate Confederation. You could (maybe even should :D) include them in the Teutonic Order's stats, and legally the Teutonic Order does control those territories, but most of the internal Livonian affairs are run by the dudes over there.Livonia could certainly be included, and listed as a faction to be appeased or perhaps lost.

Azale
Jan 16, 2009, 09:00 PM
The Empire of the Great Ming

-Emperor
-eunuchs (Inner Court)
-generals & important bureaucrats (Outer Court)
-gentry elite
-peasants

-merchants are also included but not exactly valued by the Ming higher ups
-Confucianism and specifically Neo-Confucianism is dominant among the elite I believe by this time.

I'm just putting some stuff down :) I will adjust in case I'm off on a few things.

Birdjaguar
Jan 16, 2009, 09:02 PM
I can expand on that, it will take a little research though.Not a problem, add info as you get.

Yes, I was thinking of Egypt, as a mameluke faction or something.The mameluks ruled Eguypt until 1517 when the Turks conquered them. You can request Egypt and then read up on them to come up with appropriate factions. There may even be some smart folks here who would know what would be approproiate ones.

Christian Ethiopia is another good choice.

The Strategos
Jan 16, 2009, 09:03 PM
Application:

France

-Ruler (House of Valois)
-Catholicism
-Nobility [Land Owners?] (Bourbon, various sub-branches of Valois, etc.)
-Non-Integrated Provinces (Brittany [well kind of through marriage though not officially],Burgundy [by technicality, Charles VIII was supposed to marry Margaret of Austria and get Artois and Burgundy as dowry, however in 1488 Charles agreed to marry Anne of Brittany instead, leaving Margaret and her dowry in limbo, which in OTL wasn’t settled until 1493], etc)
-Localized Parlements (Paris, Languedoc, Dauphine, Guyenne and Gascony, Burgundy)
-Peasants

Birdjaguar
Jan 16, 2009, 09:05 PM
Denmark (Kalmar Union) has been requested by lord_joakim.

And please note the Inka, Aztec and other Indian civs are available.

Dachs
Jan 16, 2009, 09:05 PM
Its the Ottoman Empire and it will be a challenge to play. the Pope will likely stir up Christian hatred against it and the Persians will challenge it from the east. I'm not sure I could recommend you take it. Persia might be better; or Egypt if you want the middle east.
Technically, Safavid Persia doesn't exist yet; it's Aq Qoyunlu (the White Sheep Turkoman Confederation), and it would be even more difficult than the Ottomans to take over. Their leader, Yaqub ibn Hassan, has just died as of 1490, and a new wave of protonationalist Iranian revolts and succession crises is about to begin. Their neighbors the Timurid Sultans of Samarkand and Herat are also having problems. So the stage is set for the ascendancy of the Safavids, but it hasn't happened yet, and that dynasty still controls but the Safaviya military and Sufi order.
Livonia could certainly be included, and listed as a faction to be appeased or perhaps lost.
This is true. Additional factions to be added in could be the Livonian cities (Riga, Reval, and Dorpat, who all exercised significant influence in the Confederation), since the other members of the Confederation (the clergy and the Livonian Order) can be lumped together with preexisting factions.

Birdjaguar
Jan 16, 2009, 09:13 PM
Technically, Safavid Persia doesn't exist yet; it's Aq Qoyunlu (the White Sheep Turkoman Confederation), and it would be even more difficult than the Ottomans to take over. Their leader, Yaqub ibn Hassan, has just died as of 1490, and a new wave of protonationalist Iranian revolts and succession crises is about to begin. Their neighbors the Timurid Sultans of Samarkand and Herat are also having problems. So the stage is set for the ascendancy of the Safavids, but it hasn't happened yet, and that dynasty still controls but the Safaviya military and Sufi order.
Thanks for that bit. Maybe das or an equally astute player will take area and do a little nation building. ;)

Dachs
Jan 16, 2009, 09:22 PM
Thanks for that bit. Maybe das or an equally astute player will take area and do a little nation building. ;)
Thlayli's already had his turn at (resurrecting, technically) the Safavids, so make sure somebody else gets a try. :p

Birdjaguar
Jan 16, 2009, 09:31 PM
I'll keep a running list of requests here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7660832&postcount=227

fantasmo
Jan 16, 2009, 09:51 PM
Austria:

House of Habsburg/Hapsburg (Rulers)
Clergy (Catholic)
Austrian Nobility
Dutch Nobles
Dutch Free Cities


I guess that'll do. Y'all should tell me if any of that needs changing...it was not so adequately researched as I would have liked, cos I needed to get in quick to make sure I got my Habsburgs. :D

Masada
Jan 16, 2009, 11:02 PM
I'll be taking a Northern European Banking family. Do you want any details for those?

Birdjaguar
Jan 17, 2009, 12:08 AM
Austria:

House of Habsburg/Hapsburg (Rulers)
Clergy (Catholic)
Minor Nobility
Burgundians
Dutch Nationalists (Although it would be some time before they revolted, quite a few of the Dutch nobles didn't like Maximilian, or the Habsburgs in general. Nor did they like the French, so it seems reasonable to assume they wanted Dutch independence.)


I guess that'll do. Y'all should tell me if any of that needs changing...it was not so adequately researched as I would have liked, cos I needed to get in quick to make sure I got my Habsburgs. :DThanks, you can refine it as you dig a little deeper.

I'll be taking a Northern European Banking family. Do you want any details for those?Not at this time, but you can post your ideas if you like. I see the bankers doing two roles at this time. One would be to loan money to nations who need it to fund wars and expeditions. They would probably have to charge interest etc. to make ends meet. The second role would be a source of mercenaries. In that role you would have to hire and train small armies and when players needed them they would go to you or an NPC source (for competitive reasons).

I'm combining these two functions because I'm not sure one is sufficient to sustain good play. I am open to suggestions. I think that the game needs at least two such players for the role to be effective. With your interest as an incentive, I will give it more thought.

By including such a role, I have to make sure that there will be some player demand for money so I would have to make money tighter and harder to come by in the game. Your thoughts and ideas are welcome.

I see bankers having particular cities where they have operations and income that is tied to the economic success of those regions. In BirdNES 1 I had a family that I used as a vehicle for the updates, The House of Verner. They were traders, but are the basis for this idea of players as bankers and arms merchants.

http://www.civfanatics.net/methos/bts/updated.gif
EDIT: There is probably no reason that bankers could not get involved in the intrigues of factions in various nations too.

Luckymoose
Jan 17, 2009, 12:30 AM
You are a mod now?

Birdjaguar
Jan 17, 2009, 12:35 AM
You are a mod now?Apparently for the NESing forum only. All of a sudden my screen changed.:eek: I know as much as you do.