New NESes, ideas, development, etc

Neverwonagame3 said:

I disagree with the basic theory behind Symphony D's culture NES

Click to expand...

So, the entire field of Anthropology then?

EDIT: This is criticising the model in your NES only. I don't know any more Anthropology then that, to be fair. But there are almost certainly rival theories if you count ones from past decades, and probably rival theories that have lasted to this day.

My Points:
-Enquiry: How can the model account for the way pre-industrial commerical states worked? This would be hardest in frontier America, I think.

-Enquiry: How can the model account for European states circa 600 A.D? They are largely Imperial, but extracted no tribute.

-Enquiry: How can the model account for the sort of society that would have existed had the nationalistic ideologies of the 1800s been resisted? (e.g- other states preventing a united Germany, the collapse of Austria, and so on for the sake of the balance of power, and working together to crush pro-democracy rebellion)

-Why need businesses necessarily persue other types of power in a Commercial world? As far as I can tell, they persue their own economic interests

-The model fails to account for the ideological power wielded by academics and intellectuals which led up to ideas such as the inherent good of German and Italian unity, and nationalism in general.

-How does the model account for a system in which the king is either weak or a "lame duck", and noblemen exercises the powers assosiated with rulers in the Imperial World model?

-Why need businesses utilise unequal exchanges to gain wealth? Why can't they use, say, cost-cutting or marketing superior ideas to their competitors to gain an advantage? How can you demonstrate the exchanges are unequal? (One assumes this is not a prima facie assumption because the businesses get rich)

You're reading it all wrong, and it's really evident in the questions you're asking.

The details listed in the chart are supplementary. They indicate the typical fashions in which those types of society exercise themselves. As the rules selection itself states, those lists are not comprehensive, nor all-inclusive, nor even necessary. It is entirely possible to have weak kings in the Imperial World, non-industrial entities in the Commercial World, ad infinitum. It just wasn't historically the case and ergo, not a likely outcome of those situations, or a lesser one.

Basically, you're dismissing a theory because of a short list of examples, or rather, the cause because its list of symptoms isn't satisfying enough to you. The real meat of it is contained within CULTURAL PROCESS AND SUBPROCESSES BY CULTURAL WORLD. That is the process; what is under INFRASTRUCTURE, STRUCTURE, AND SUPERSTRUCTURE IN THREE CULTURAL WORLDS are simply some of the results.

There is nothing in the process that prevents the system from producing the scenarios which you describe, and you are just assuming that it cannot generate them because they are not listed in the extremely brief selection of example outputs.

Sorry- I'll check out that area to see if I still have a gripe.

EDIT: Sorry, I was wrong. While I still disagree with the part I critcicised, IF the part you mentioned as being the meat of it is used for the changes (ie- things from the previous stage mostly carry over) then I agree with it.

AMENDMENT:
I will use that part of it IF I do an NES on that basis. I'm not sure which of these four things to do:

a- Not do an NES.
b- Do a Roman Empire NES with the primary focus being around individuals of military rank and the Empire as a whole (with perhaps some cultural elements such as somebody playing the Pope).
c- Doing a Fresh Start NES combining culture and nations.
d- Do a standard style NES with the main change being that players play individual rulers, not nations. This means that upon the ruler's death, they actually can't continue with the old nation. This would more realistically stimulate differing policies.

You should start a poll or something. Or you could just think a long time and decide which you want to do.

Is "C" going to be on an earth map or a non-earth map if it is chosen?

If I do C, I'll PROBABLY do a Non-Earth map.

EDIT: Also, I don't actually know how to do a poll.

Neverwonagame3 said:

IF the part you mentioned as being the meat of it is used for the changes (ie- things from the previous stage mostly carry over) then I agree with it.

Click to expand...

What does "co-opt" mean to you?

Sorry- I didn't notice the word "co-opt" in the text.

Neverwonagame3 said:

AMENDMENT:
I will use that part of it IF I do an NES on that basis. I'm not sure which of these four things to do:

a- Not do an NES.
b- Do a Roman Empire NES with the primary focus being around individuals of military rank and the Empire as a whole (with perhaps some cultural elements such as somebody playing the Pope).
c- Doing a Fresh Start NES combining culture and nations.
d- Do a standard style NES with the main change being that players play individual rulers, not nations. This means that upon the ruler's death, they actually can't continue with the old nation. This would more realistically stimulate differing policies.

Click to expand...

a- Not an option

b- Could work, I wouldn't mind this.

c- Please...please to goodness, if this is the selection, do it on Earth. We have a glut of non-Earth fresh starts right now with perhaps another one coming.

d- Could be interesting depending on the update increments and the way statistics are shown aaand the world you setup.

I really can't say much about the culture idea; it just fails to grasp any interest on my part, at least until you elaborate on what do you mean by "culture" and on what the hell is a "culture" player supposed to do with it (as well as how will you prevent excessive interaction between culture and state players). Rome is a more interesting idea, and you might want to ask the Strategos for information if you intend to incorporate religion (let's not call it the way more ambiguous and many-sided "culture" here) there, as he already wrote an alternate history about Late Roman Christian policies.

Now, as to this:

d- Do a standard style NES with the main change being that players play individual rulers, not nations. This means that upon the ruler's death, they actually can't continue with the old nation. This would more realistically stimulate differing policies.

Click to expand...

It occurs to me that, while the standard NES system overestimates political continuity, your system underestimates it, badly. While the deaths of rulers do indeed cause a certain political shake-up, it does not necessarily lead to a complete change of policies. In fact, the cases I can remember off-hand of actually radical changes in policy that can't have happened under the same ruler (or, rather, the same player) were always more like exceptions than rules. Now, if we were talking about dynasties, this would make much more sense and would be much easier to handle. Maybe you could even merge it with the individual idea, sort of: have people play different factions within a limited amount of states, with one faction reigning (usually) and others either supporting it or conspiring against it (or both, ofcourse, and there should plenty of space for reason). This would make a ruler's popularity a much more important issue and make suicidal policies (like endless wars or disregard for traditions) less likely.

(Also, as an additional idea, you might want to fast-forward it towards some basic empires with a well-formed monarchic system)

O.K, I've got several possible ideas. I also have an extra one- whichever one I do, there will a democratic vote on when to have BTs, with ITs being the default unless the players want otherwise.

Can somebody tell me how to make a poll?

NES choices:
a- My Rome idea. I can do it, but it will lack historical accuracy on the rough zone of command on each commander unless I get that information. ASSUMING I don't get it, then do people mind if I start with things being a bit historically inaccurate in that area?

b- A Culture NES. Some clarifications as to how that would work:
A Culture player can alter the culture's Tenets, Society, and Values (terms have same meanings as in Symphony D's NES) over time. So can rulers, but Culture players will have more influence. They can try to create means of cultural control (an instution like the Papacy, sets of intellectuals and writers like what existed in the 1800s) to prevent rulers changing cultures, but ultimately are in competition with other cultures.

c- Perhaps it could work better for dynasties, though I still maintain that my system with individuals has it's strengths. If I go this way, it will almost certainly be a feudal NES.

d- An Institutions NES, probably set in ancient Greece (I'm not sure how to overcome the problem, if players can as I would prefer make their own civs, of players making their civilisation an absolute monarchy just to get around competition).

A Culture player can alter the culture's Tenets, Society, and Values (terms have same meanings as in Symphony D's NES) over time. So can rulers, but Culture players will have more influence. They can try to create means of cultural control (an instution like the Papacy, sets of intellectuals and writers like what existed in the 1800s) to prevent rulers changing cultures, but ultimately are in competition with other cultures.

Click to expand...

The main problem here seems to be that, regardless of some clashes between rulers and cultures, for all effects and purposes the culture side of the NES might as well be an entirely separate and parallel NES - so why not do that instead? I mean, if you do both parts in one NES, one of them will inevitably be sort of tacked on and secondary (and so far, the rulers definitely seem redundant).

c- Perhaps it could work better for dynasties, though I still maintain that my system with individuals has it's strengths. If I go this way, it will almost certainly be a feudal NES.

Click to expand...

Feudalism is actually an entirely different angle from what I was suggesting. I was talking more about oriental absolute monarchies. Actually, a Middle East-centered Medieval NES might work out pretty nice, though a whole new setting specifically fitted for this task would possibly be even better if you hate our home planet this much ( ).

d- An Institutions NES, probably set in ancient Greece (I'm not sure how to overcome the problem, if players can as I would prefer make their own civs, of players making their civilisation an absolute monarchy just to get around competition).

Click to expand...

Allow them to be creative within certain boundaries based on the general idea of the Ancient Greek polis that makes absolute monarchies pretty much impossible in the area in question. Duh.

Does anybody know how to start a thread with a poll?

b- Rulers can also alter culture, within the limits of realism. Culture represents the structural forces, while rulers represent the individuals.

c- I think I might like trying a new setting. That could work.

d- That could work.

EDIT:
I've come up with another idea- perhaps I should make a faster-updating version of NESLife?

When you click the new thread button, in the page that opens up, type up your opening post. Then go down to the bottom of the "Additional Options" box, check the "Post a Poll" box, fill in the number of options in the provided space, and after you click "post new thread" it will take you immediately to the poll, where you can fill it out. Make sure you get everything correct the first time, because you can't change the options after you post the poll.

Neverwonagame3 said:

I've come up with another idea- perhaps I should make a faster-updating version of NESLife?

Click to expand...

Can you do the drawings?

No- nor the map. But I'd emphasise faster updating.

NesLife is worthless without pictures IMO.

Neverwonagame3 said:

No- nor the map. But I'd emphasise faster updating.

Click to expand...

You should just make a poll and then describe all the things you can or can't do when working with certain NESs.

TBH how you can't do maps is beyond me.. its very very simple.

how a nes can run without a map is also beyond me.

In the hypothetical that I do the concept, it will start off like Daftpanzer's first update of it, covering the warm seas only. Later on, the land (and later still, seperate lands) will be covered. The skies might be even later.