New NESes, ideas, development, etc

If it comes up to be a solid NES with good rules, a consisently updating mod that's half-decent, and great opportunity for each player to do something with it (and it being a NES, presumably means war and annexing everyone else), then it's fine by my book.

If, then yes, but all we have so far is a setting with pretensions of alternate history, so there isn't really anything else to critique. :p
 
Lord Iggy, what kind of Fallout NES did Reno run? I'd be interested in looking back in the archives and seeing how that turned out.
 
Didn't Gelion run one too? Anyhow, a Fallout NES is a grand idea, though there are ofcourse many different ways to do it. I think a semi-fresh start based directly on the original Fallout setting starting in the immediate post-war years might be particularly worth working with, as it's the right blend of freedom and foundation.

Found Gelion's, though it died early.
 
So here's the idea: I want to run a fresh-start that would be both easy to update for me while at at the same time fun to play for you guys. Now to me easy to update means orders which, in the fewest possible words, detail exactly you want to achieve for the turn. For this to work I needed two things: I needed a way of resolving your orders as quickly as possible and I also needed a means of ensuring that you would want and need to send me very sparse orders.

In the first I thought about having players detail precisely in what order (measured in years) they wanted to do something with. This would have been materially similar to what Bird did for BirdNES3. I thought about it then decided that it was all to hard on my part to computate the amount of time that a given action would have required to be carried out effectively. It was also to much work for the players and it was likely to ensure that I got long orders when all I wanted was short ones. I liked the idea but discarded. Instead I came up with a simpler system:

At the start of the turn I would announce a range of numbers from 1 to X. I'll use 1-5 for the example. Each number would have three functions:

(1) they would allow one action each;
(2) they would also be a means of resolving each action, in order; and
(3) the maximum number in the range divided by the number of years would give me the length of each round allowing you to gauge the likely results and me to project them in a uniform fashion.

Updates became that much easier at this point. However, they were not as easy as I wanted them to be! So I hit upon another mechanic which I hope will help to hurry up the game. Basically, I intend to use a list derived from Daftpanzer which quantifies each and every single possible action that a player can do during a turn. Sample orders might look something like this:

Orders for the turn would be something like this:
(1) I want to begin a Crusade;
(2) I want to consolidate my conquests;
(3) I want to have a religious revival;
(4) I want to convert the heretics in my state;
(5) I want to begin another Crusade.

I would handle it like this in game.

(1) would resolve first: A Crusade would be carried out.
(2) would then resolve: the conquests would be consolidated.
(3) would then resolve: a religious revival would occur which might convert the lands taken over;
(4) would then occur with existing heretics in the state being converted;
(5) A new Crusade would then be declared.

*Turn End*

The next turn would be the declared. With the last action by that player being the declaration of a Crusade. Those conquests might be vulnerable to attack because they've only just been conquered and because they have a different religion. Other players could capitalize on that. Players would further be restricted by a word count.

However, players would be encouraged to write stories to make up for this. By encouraged I mean those players who were willing to write stories regardless of how they were doing in game would get a voice in shaping the world. Those who wrote particularly well would also be awarded "Great People" points which could be redeemed to achieve some specific act of awesomeness.

All I require is the list which I've requested from Daftpanzer and a map to start on.
 
By typing them up together.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's arse what the setting is, as long as it's a good game. Tell "realism" to find a fat man in a wifebeater, get him to knock it out, take it to the bushes and give it a good time.

If it comes up to be a solid NES with good rules, a consisently updating mod that's half-decent, and great opportunity for each player to do something with it (and it being a NES, presumably means war and annexing everyone else), then it's fine by my book.

Question is, does omega's NES fit those criteria?

The problem is that a stupid setting possibly indicates a lack of understanding on the half of the mod, which means stuff in the updates will probably also be arbitary and disjointed.
 
I am looking for all the political junkies out there, perferably those with strong opinion because I am working on a political simulation game where players are trying to run the government of a nation that echoes the United States. Players are no longer nations, but politicans vying for the throne. So is anyone interested?

Anyway, I have finished the ruleset. Would anyone like to see the structure before I even attempt to put it on the Forum? This is my first NES, so I could use some constructive criticism.
Edit: I can send it in a PM, just ask. I didn't want to jam up the thread.
 
@ Masada: I am interested.

@ 1st citizen: No-one can offer you any criticism unless you tell us more about the ruleset.
 
The PoD was 1952. There were plans in real life to annex Japan, but Truman didn't go through with it (For obvious reasons). Since 90% of the UN forces at Korea were American, there was much more manpower, so much so that battles like Onjong were UN victories. Thus, Korea was united. Chinese nationalism after Korea was widespread, because of thoughts that their generals cheated a victory out of them. To regain honor, they annexed Mongolia and Tibet, both went surprisingly quick. For Vietnam, Ia Drang was a US victory, albeit with heavy casualties. After a Battle of Hanoi in 1966, Vietnam was won, but the Viet Cong still remains to this day as a independence terrorist group. After 3 years of American troops being stationed, even with the war over, Vietnam requested to become a state, due to the lack of stability. Afghanistan was PoDed after Mavar Pass, a now-Soviet victory. After other battles, the communistic government was installed. For Britain, let's just say there was a "banking accident", okay :mischief:? Any other questions? (I guess I don't really need to post the timeline anymore, I just summed it all up)
 
Omega124 said:
There were plans in real life to annex Japan, but Truman didn't go through with it (For obvious reasons).

Cool, but why did it annex it in this time-line when those problems were so obvious.

Since 90% of the UN forces at Korea were American, there was much more manpower, so much so that battles like Onjong were UN victories. Thus, Korea was united.

Aside from assuming there would be a Battle of Onjong if American troops numbers were increased. How then did Korea end up a State of the Union?

Omega124 said:
Chinese nationalism after Korea was widespread, because of thoughts that their generals cheated a victory out of them. To regain honor, they annexed Mongolia and Tibet, both went surprisingly quick.

They did that in OTL effectively as well. I don't see how that is an adequate response to a united Korea on their border.

Omega124 said:
For Vietnam, Ia Drang was a US victory, albeit with heavy casualties.

I don't see how that's meaningful considering what you want to achieve.

Omega124 said:
After a Battle of Hanoi in 1966, Vietnam was won, but the Viet Cong still remains to this day as a independence terrorist group.

So you have the American army rolling into Hanoi. Why? What was Soviet Unions response. What was China's for that matter? Quite apart from the difficulty of winning the war with conventional means I just don't see how that end game would be possible let alone probable.

Omega124 said:
After 3 years of American troops being stationed, even with the war over, Vietnam requested to become a state, due to the lack of stability.

Whaaaa? Vietnam becomes a State of the Union as well?

Omega124 said:
Afghanistan was PoDed after Mavar Pass, a now-Soviet victory. After other battles, the communistic government was installed.

How is that meaningfully different to OTL? The Soviets could win conventional military victories. They just couldn't translate those into tangible control. Besides, installing a government as the United States has shown and as the Soviet Union showed is only half the story.

Omega124 said:
For Britain, let's just say there was a "banking accident", okay ?

That's totally plausible...

Omega124 said:
Any other questions?

Yes. To many to list.

Omega124 said:
I guess I don't really need to post the timeline anymore, I just summed it all up

Post it. The summary is wanting. I don't want to have to conclude that the whole project is.
 
Aside from assuming there would be a Battle of Onjong if American troops numbers were increased. How then did Korea end up a State of the Union?

I get the impression it wasn't. Unlike Japan and Vietnam.

They did that in OTL effectively as well.

Not Mongolia, because that was the original Soviet satellite state and as much as looking at it would've gone against every principle of Mao's strategy and politics... for the 1950s. I'm not sure he would've tried it even in 1960s, actually. In any case, there certainly is a big difference between conquering Tibet and conquering Mongolia, and that is the Soviet Army; I don't think being beaten in Korea is enough to make the Chinese overcome that, certainly not within the time limit implied.

Whaaaa? Vietnam becomes a State of the Union as well?

Yeah, I was kinda hoping he meant the Chinese would take it over based on the original post, but no such luck.

How is that meaningfully different to OTL? The Soviets could win conventional military victories. They just couldn't translate those into tangible control. Besides, installing a government as the United States has shown and as the Soviet Union showed is only half the story.

It's more likely than you think! But military victories indeed have nothing to do with it.

Anyway, so everything proceeds from the annexation of Japan? Care to elaborate both on why that happened and on why it had the results it had?

One last thing: if you have a remotely realistic economic system, USA+Japan is going to be a monster in NES terms, and I made the freaking Federated Kingdom (Disenfrancised and Thlayli know what I'm talking about). Actually, America in this sounds like it would be a 21st century version of the same.
 
Didn't Gelion run one too? Anyhow, a Fallout NES is a grand idea, though there are ofcourse many different ways to do it. I think a semi-fresh start based directly on the original Fallout setting starting in the immediate post-war years might be particularly worth working with, as it's the right blend of freedom and foundation.

Found Gelion's, though it died early.

Originally, my thinking was a "modern", NES with structured rules, starting in 2177, with created factions. However, there are a myriad of problems with that idea, starting out with the most obvious: What to do with the rest of the world? Areas outside of America are very rarely talked about in Fallout, and are never fleshed out. Thus, a fresh start in 2161 at the time of the first game would allow nearly 100% freedom for players to create their own factions, and completely define the "NESified", Fallout universe at the start of the first game in the original Fallout canon.

Doing so, would leave me with the belief that to best structure this form, the NES would be story-based a la Back to Our Roots. Out of all the people who seem interested, everyone seems to favor a story-based Fallout, from what I've seen. Be this true?

EDIT: Even so, I want players for the Brotherhood of Steel and the Enclave, if only because those factions are so necessary and were established respectively hours before the lights went out, and years.
 
Cool, but why did it annex it in this time-line when those problems were so obvious.

Truman decided to take a risk and go with it.

Aside from assuming there would be a Battle of Onjong if American troops numbers were increased. How then did Korea end up a State of the Union?

It didn't. Korea is its own country. It was a UN mission, no country could had annexed it.

They did that in OTL effectively as well. I don't see how that is an adequate response to a united Korea on their border.

The occupation didn't happen until 1970 in my timeline, actually. Plus, if they lost, wouldn't they be even more angry?

I don't see how that's meaningful considering what you want to achieve.

It was a draw in real life, and it was a very infulental fight. That was the first battle the Viet Cong fought the Americans to a standstill, and would influence how both sides fought the war for the rest of that war. Had America won, it would have been just another victory.

So you have the American army rolling into Hanoi. Why? What was Soviet Unions response. What was China's for that matter? Quite apart from the difficulty of winning the war with conventional means I just don't see how that end game would be possible let alone probable.

Without a infulencal Viet Cong, the North Vietnam was no match for South Vietnam and Americia. The war caused much more tension, that's for one. Again, the war was quite conventinal until the Viet Cong became an important factor in the war.

Whaaaa? Vietnam becomes a State of the Union as well?

Okay, I might have read a little too much Watchmen, sorry.

How is that meaningfully different to OTL? The Soviets could win conventional military victories. They just couldn't translate those into tangible control. Besides, installing a government as the United States has shown and as the Soviet Union showed is only half the story.

It wouldn't have caused the war to last 10 years.

That's totally plausible...

I'm going to assume that's sarcasam and ignore this.
 
Would anyone be interested in a Napoleonic-era NES? I've been thinking of starting something of the sort soon, but I want to know if anyone is interested first.
I am interested, but what do you mean exactly? Would the scope be Europe only or world wide? Napoleon is always fun.

I have a half designed rule set that focuses on Europe and the military campaigns, more like a wargame than a traditional NES. Nations could have multiple players as commanders under a ruler. Bi-weekly or weekly turns during most of the year going to monthly or longer during the winter unless there are active campaigns. The heart of the system is a battle module that simplifies warfare and allows generals to improve through experience.
 
Originally, my thinking was a "modern", NES with structured rules, starting in 2177, with created factions. However, there are a myriad of problems with that idea, starting out with the most obvious: What to do with the rest of the world? Areas outside of America are very rarely talked about in Fallout, and are never fleshed out. Thus, a fresh start in 2161 at the time of the first game would allow nearly 100% freedom for players to create their own factions, and completely define the "NESified", Fallout universe at the start of the first game in the original Fallout canon.

Doing so, would leave me with the belief that to best structure this form, the NES would be story-based a la Back to Our Roots. Out of all the people who seem interested, everyone seems to favor a story-based Fallout, from what I've seen. Be this true?

EDIT: Even so, I want players for the Brotherhood of Steel and the Enclave, if only because those factions are so necessary and were established respectively hours before the lights went out, and years.

Personally I was thinking of a pre-NES starting in 2077, to let people flesh out their factions from the start before beginning the game proper, though if you insist on leaving the BoS and some other fixtures as in canon then maybe a later start would be better. It's a matter of your priorities.

Don't forget that even America hasn't been all that fleshed out; only a few chosen segments of it, even if we factor in Tactics. I suppose that's where player freedom will come in, unless you decide to focus on a smaller region. Actually, it occurs to me that Fallout is a pretty good setting for a cradle NES, with gradual expansion to other regions as time goes on and players explore.
 
Personally I was thinking of a pre-NES starting in 2077, to let people flesh out their factions from the start before beginning the game proper, though if you insist on leaving the BoS and some other fixtures as in canon then maybe a later start would be better. It's a matter of your priorities.

Don't forget that even America hasn't been all that fleshed out; only a few chosen segments of it, even if we factor in Tactics. I suppose that's where player freedom will come in, unless you decide to focus on a smaller region. Actually, it occurs to me that Fallout is a pretty good setting for a cradle NES, with gradual expansion to other regions as time goes on and players explore.

I definitely think I will be going for the post-War period, since although everyone knew something was on the horizon before the War, there was very little at all anyone could do about it, and the likelihood of enough people of similar mind surviving the apocalypse in the same area, and sticking to a pre-organized plan is very small.

I interpret Tactics as canon, but since I'm decided on a pre-Tactics start period, the only Brotherhood organization existing at the beginning would be the Western Brotherhood.

If you and nutranurse are both as interested as you seem, it'd be great to talk to you on AIM, or a forum group/pre-thread or somesuch. My main concern is the rule-set, and how it will influence the game.
 
TBH this discussion of TL should probably go in the ATL thread. Mainly because it doesn't have much to do with a ruleset.

Anyway Masada it looks good.
 
I am interested, but what do you mean exactly? Would the scope be Europe only or world wide? Napoleon is always fun.

I have a half designed rule set that focuses on Europe and the military campaigns, more like a wargame than a traditional NES. Nations could have multiple players as commanders under a ruler. Bi-weekly or weekly turns during most of the year going to monthly or longer during the winter unless there are active campaigns. The heart of the system is a battle module that simplifies warfare and allows generals to improve through experience.

I was thinking world-wide, probably starting around 1802, during the small period of peace that happened after the 2nd Coalition. Of course, most of the action would probably be going on in Europe, at least in the beginning, but there are other interesting nations in that time period around the world.

Also, the idea for a battle style NES sounds intriguing.
 
@Agent89
I think you mean 1802. I am interested in your NES though.

@DaftPanzer
I think a battle NES would be great. What time period would it take place in?

My NES idea:

The Secret Wars
Time period: either 1972 or 2015
Background: Basically terrorism has reached and enormous peak and the world is in chaos. People live in constant fear of getting blown up or assassinated.

Players: Players can either control nations, NGOs, or terrorist organizations

Because of the nature of this NES fighting will be much more covert and indirect. It will be intelligence wars and unconventional warfare. Although it is possible for the fighting to get conventional, it is not as likely an occurrence.

If the time is 1972, I would also integrate the Cold War in as well. The nature of the cold war would promote the same kind of unconventional warfare because nobody wants to get blown to bits.

I have no Idea how to go about the stats nor do I have an economy system. Do you guys have any ideas?
 
Top Bottom