New NES possibility...

Which one

  • 1. 4000 BC NES

    Votes: 4 14.8%
  • 2. 600 AD NES

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • 3. Rennasaince NES

    Votes: 4 14.8%
  • 4. Alternate History NES

    Votes: 11 40.7%
  • 5. USNES

    Votes: 5 18.5%
  • 6. NO, Don't Start One!

    Votes: 2 7.4%

  • Total voters
    27

North King

blech
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
18,165
I've been thinking about starting a new NES recently, as I'm about to be on summer break and all, and I was wondering if people were interested in this. It would either be:

1. A 4000 BC NES with a few innovative new rules, which are becoming scarcer these days... This is my personal favorite type, but maybe not for others...

2. A 600 AD NES, the only disadvantage being that this would be much like Xen's current NES.

3. A Rennasaince/Enlightenment historical NES, like 1700s type time period.

4. A few Alternate history ideas are floating about my head as ideas for NESes.

5. A US NES, so to speak, where you take control of a single state, and try to increase your own power and rig the national government to your advantage (based on Articles of Confederation).

6. Last option is rather self explanatory. ;)
 
1 and 3 sound best IMO
 
it won't matter if its close to others ones or been done before as long as its good
 
Odd... 29 or so veiws, only 6 votes, and I've only veiwed this about five times. :confused:
 
Enlightenment all the way!
 
nooo! Not another alternative history NES, there are like 500 of those already. Make a new 4000 story NES, or even enlightenment might be interesting.. but preferably 4000 story... my advice would be 3000 story though.
 
i wouldn't mind if there was another REAL story NES instead of the board NESes which undeservingly hold the title of story NES.
 
Since the Majority of people seemed to like an Alternate History (I suppose I can save those really good 4000 BC rules for another time, then), I'll decide on which one to do, with a multitude of ideas floating around my head. Among these are: Arabs conquer Europe, Britan conquers the rebellious Americans, Chinese treasure fleets not stopped... Any ideas on which of these is the best to do?
 
Chinese Treasure Fleets not stopped.
 
Somehow, I expected that. ;)

Though perhaps 4000 BC is catching up, loking at the poll counter...
 
Any of the three would be nice (note that about Muslim Europe, I guess that some parts, such as Scandinavia and British Isles, will remain Christian. Also remember about the Khazar Kaganate, a Judaistic state in Russia that too opposed the Muslims and stopped them from attack Eastern Europe). As a professional alternate historian, however, I might have lots of ideas. Also, I might, if it is not against your pride, suggest several alternate histories in the books and in the web.

My ideas:

- Attila the Hun becomes a Western Roman Emperor after his victory at Catalunyan (?) fields. Roman Empire is redivided, with Northern Roman Empire (Attila and his successors) in former Western Roman lands in Europe, Southern Roman Empire (rebel general and his successors) in Eastern and Western Roman lands in Africa, Eastern Roman Empire (the legitimate Roman dynasty) in what’s left. Cold war between the three empires, rebellions and immigrations, barbarian attacks. Rest of the world pretty much the same until the White Huns (Ephtalites) overrun Persia...
- France is never united (until 19th century at least, pretty much like Germany and Italy).
- Russia wins the Livonian War (against Poland-Lithuania and Sweden, during Ivan the Terrible’s reign), builds up a strong alliance with England and Denmark, prospers from fur trade from Narva, thus becoming an important factor in European politics much earlier (and likely siding with the Protestants in the Thirty Years War, as it did send grain to Protest German principalities and distracted the Poles from it historically). Balance of power in Europe flies to hell.
- Hapsburgs inherit all of Burgundy, and come to unite the HRE altogether, creating a powerful Germany early on.
- Napoleon invades Britain, doesn’t invade Russia. Russia and France are the superpowers throughout the 19th Century, but USA too is on the rise, having picked up Canada.
- The Alliance of Three Emperors (between Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary) endures, and wins WWI against UK, France and their allies.
- France goes Communist during the Great Depression, followed by Italy, Romania, Hungary and Spain.

Outside (book/web) ideas:

- “The Years of Rice and Salt” (Kim Steven Robinson) – the Black Death plague wipes out over 99% of Europe’s population, leaving the world to be dominated by Muslim and Chinese civilizations (with later arrival of Indians (Old World ones) and Hodenausaunee (Indians, New World)).
- “Decades of Darkness” (can be found on google.soc.history.what-if (Just search here)) – New England secedes from USA in 1811, while Germany becomes a loose confederation of states, including Prussia, Austria and Netherlands. USA becomes the main slave-owning slave-trading nation in the world.
- “Monarchy World” (Monarchy World) – China has a different emperor in the 18th Century, a one who opened China to the world, started many reforms and modernization. Communist and Fascism never appear, the world is (as of late 20th century) in a three-side nuclear balance between Russian, British and Chinese Empires.
- “Puritan World” (Puritan World) – Charles I of England is not executed, and eventually regains his throne with foreign support, forcing Cromwell and his followers to escape to North America, where they formed a theocratic puritan empire. England never becomes a major power, there is no French Revolution.
 
voted USNES, but i'd want a board game.
EQ said:
i wouldn't mind if there was another REAL story NES instead of the board NESes which undeservingly hold the title of story NES.
i'm on the complete other side of that debate. i'm tired of all the games being story games and claiming to have some semblance of "rules".
need a board game to join. strict rules, where the only thing thats random is the outcome of the battles, but even that follows some sort of rules. you know a game where you can sort of predict what an opponent will do and how to counter it.
 
My main argument against board NESes is that these aren't NESes. These are board games. NOT NESes.
 
das, that's just semantics and about a word that changed meanings at that. its like saying that the word "you" is not realy a word cause it should be "thow" or however the old enlish word is spelled.

NES no longer means "never ending story" as it used to.
it just means a game in this particular Forum. that's basicaly it.
 
das: You're a professional alternate historian? That's one job I would simply love to have. :)

Most of those are excellent ideas, and I will consider them. Thank you.

Roddy: Sorry, but no, I dislike board NESes, indeed, I dislike most board games because of their lack of detail and narrative.
 
Lol, okay, let's put it another way. I am a... an expert alternate historian, or something like that. Well, you can see the point.

Roddy, I just don't see much difference between the "board NESes" and the board games. A NES game, in general, is somehow story-oriented and has narrative updates. Board games and board NESes have provinces and stuff. A "story NES" is much more flexible, and more realistic. A board game, on the other hand, is not as realistic, but most fast-paced.

Therefore, I think that "board game" (meaning something like Risk, Diplomacy, etc...) and "board NES" is one genre, a NES is another.
 
Back
Top Bottom