New NESes, ideas, development, etc

Yeah it was espiriots.... dig it! now!
 
Dig for it yourself, I need to assure Ukrainean world domination.
 
Any more help needed?
 
I've been pondering starting a Nes for a bit now, and I think I shall, but I'd like help in setting it up. It will be modern age/alt history, no nuclear capabilities at all. Biological and chemical warfare is the new wave. Attacks with these weapons have occured so much that rebel groups have emmerged throughout the world, posing a strong threat to the world governments. National boundaries have changed emmensely, mainly due to the fact that there's no nuclear threat.

Ive been thinking about the economy a lot, because it seems unrealistic to me for an economy to change every other turn. I was thinking of making it so that you can't grow the economy directly, you have to use other methods to do this. You could invest in a trade route, develop new commercial technologies or processing techniques, expand your population through war, and other things. Most aspects on the Nes would have an impact on your economy. Ive been debating though on using the GoobNes economy or something similar to the economy used in FëstNes.

For military I think I'd start with mostly generic units for everyone, and allow them to develop/research technology to improve them. I'm having a bit of trouble coming up with how I would resolve battles though due to all the variables involved (I hate variables). Ive tried to take into mind inteligence, terrain, type, numbers, training, and equipment, but I end up giving up on making up a way because I over complicate it.

That's basically as far as I've gotten. I'd like to figure the rules and what not out first before I create the map and write the history. Any input at all is extremely welcome.
 
With the battles, do like we all do, improvise. Ofcourse, not completely - take into account orders, stats and terrain - but aside from that, don't overcomplicate, just imagine how a clash between two such armies, taking into account battle plans and circumstances (morale, terrain, etc - most of it should be possible to guess based on recent developments, i.e. an army which recently suffered a serious defeat with many casualties will be demoralized, as for terrain use Google Earth or just a topographic map), would fold out. Don't be afraid to add some friction, i.e. unexpected developments, it makes things more interesting and realistic.

If you need any help with ideas for history or anything, just tell me.
 
I've asked the NES forum mods to sticky this thread. (Through Pm's) :)

I was thinking of making it so that you can't grow the economy directly, you have to use other methods to do this. You could invest in a trade route, develop new commercial technologies or processing techniques, expand your population through war, and other things.

There's been a few NESses with this Economy system in use.

For military I think I'd start with mostly generic units for everyone

Aaww, no UU's? :(
 
Aaww, no UU's?
There would be few in the beginning, yes. But I'm debating on posting technology to be researched or allowing each nation to design and research there own technology

There's been a few NESses with this Economy system in use.
I'll browse the forum and look for them than, I hadn't spotted it in any of the open Neses.

@Das: So far that makes the most sense to be in determining the battle outcomes, much more simple than junk I was thinking up. The history shouldn't be a problem, I just have to find the focus to write it.
 
You should ask Stormbringer, he had rules like that for one of his NESes, also had some technology rules.

As for history/setting, do you intend this to be set in 2005? Its rather likely that in a nukeless world WWIII would have taken place. Not sure about who would have won, though, the initial phase almost certainly would have been with the Soviets (conventional army, initially anyway, was better in quality of weapons and quantity of soldiers, slight problems with the training though) but then it would have probably been the same problem as with Napoleon - sea power problems.
 
Not sure on the precise year, but a WWIII has occured, on a much larger scale as well with fighting on all continents except for Antarctica. Russia has been a problem for me, because it seems no matter what I do they countinue to be too powerful. I don't want it to be like EQ's Nes where it's the Russian threat.
 
Fighting in AUSTRALIA too?

Well, Russia isn't a superpower for nothing. To make things more fun, maybe have the war overstrain USSR AND USA and have both collapse (USSR breaks apart, USA suffers from race riots and so forth and reverts into isolation, losing most outside bases)? Or, alternatively, have them fight each other into a draw (Soviet-dominated continental Europe with occasional rebellions, American-dominated Latin America likewise)? IMHO the former variant is best because there will be no clear superpowers and thus plenty of opportunity.
 
Yes, I like that idea of over extending and collapsing. The USSR would break into republics, something similar to the way it looks in Classic Risk. The USA, well, the states would simply fall apart and form unions, not sure exact ones yet though.
 
Just to toss my own thoughts in, I don't think that the United States would suffer a civil war during the later half of the 20th century, WWIII or not, especially assuming divergence from OTL was after, say, WWII (then again, if you're getting rid of nukes, victory in the Pacific may change things some). The sense of national identity is simply too strong - even radical elements (say, the anti-war movement during Vietnam) still identify themselves as "American" first over states or particular areas - the only really notable exception to this historically is Texas, and even seems more for show than anything. The Soviet Union really isn't really the same, consisting of Ukranians, Lithuanians, Estonians, and so on - it's a much less homogeneous population, or, at the very least isn't near as intermixed as the diverse groups in the USA.

I think the election of a highly isolationist administration that would drastically decrease the military and the populace reacting very negatively to any foreign action would be far more realistic.

Also, in terms of Soviet weapons quality: more durable than the Western counterparts, sure, but after 1970 - 1975, better? I'd be willing to argue against that one pretty vehemently. ;)
 
I don't think that the United States would suffer a civil war during the later half of the 20th century, WWIII or not, especially assuming divergence from OTL was after, say, WWII (then again, if you're getting rid of nukes, victory in the Pacific may change things some)

Yes, it is unlikely but then again not entirely impossible. IMHO "For All Times" timeline with a gradual breakdown of society and occasional eruptions of anarchy with riots and so on is more likely, or indeed a revertion to isolationism.

Besides, it all depends on how badly WWIII goes. If there are devastating casualties, well, that will cause lots of troubles.

The Soviet Union really isn't really the same, consisting of Ukranians, Lithuanians, Estonians, and so on - it's a much less homogeneous population, or, at the very least isn't near as intermixed as the diverse groups in the USA.

Problem is that the ethnic minorities were gradually "intermixed", and even then USSR only fell apart due to a string of utterly incompetent leaders even when there were often chances of brighter ones coming along - most people in ethnic minorities, not counting the Baltic States ones, did not mind it all that much.

Incidentally, a WWIII is likely to HELP the Soviets. USSR was after all a system that functioned best in the time of extreme peril. Ofcourse, again, it depends on the war. I'm rather leaning to "stalemate and collapse to exhaustion".
I think the election of a highly isolationist administration that would drastically decrease the military and the populace reacting very negatively to any foreign action would be far more realistic.

Yes. Then we put Toteone there and he starts a civil war by invading someone. ;) Aside from that, this seems to be the more reasonable outcome, but I can't say there are no alternatives. If things go very badly I get the impression that there are some separatists in former CSA (then again, there are Ingrian separatists here, and so far it would seem that the Ingrians are more serious). Combined with local opportunists and extreme rightists, they might start something nasty. I believe that USA could be radicalized further along the "FAT" lines (tommy said there is increased terrorism, that rather works for us), combined with a war that doesn't seem to be ending and then broken into a civil war - an isolationist left-wing (not extremelly left-wing) candidate wins a narrow victory, and does something very stupid.
Also, in terms of Soviet weapons quality: more durable than the Western counterparts, sure, but after 1970 - 1975, better? I'd be willing to argue against that one pretty vehemently.

Not all of them (the tanks initially were far better, the Allies had better mines, etc), especially after the 70s. However, even after the 70s certain branches of technology were superior, like MiGs. The reasons Soviet weaponry is often considered inferior is because they judge it by what was given to the Arabs - i.e. inferior quality outdated weaponry.
 
I don't think that the United States would suffer a civil war during the later half of the 20th century, WWIII or not, especially assuming divergence from OTL was after, say, WWII (then again, if you're getting rid of nukes, victory in the Pacific may change things some).
Not necesarily. Should a leader be supported by the army and commit drastic acts such as martial law, eliminating freedoms, or disbanding the legislative branch, than anything is possible. It would be something of a domino effect, like California withdrawing and other large areas following.

Quality of weapons will depends entirely on the nation itself and how the leader runs it as all nations will start originally with the same technology . . . I think.

The map is actually mostly done, still deciding on the US and a few borders, but mostly i've gotten irritated at the lack of colors I can use now. The change in borders has actually gone farther than I imagined, but thankfully I've been thinking up fairly logical reasons for them. I may post it later tonight if I finish it.
 
Can someone advise me what type of economic system is good for a modern NES?
 
The one you often use. ;)
 
What about a system based on GDP? (out of the blue) Stormy gave me an idea.... with taxes and GDP.
 
Top Bottom