New NESes, ideas, development, etc

[Symphony D.]

However, I would like to note that I think that half-year updates would work fine in an approximately modern setting.

Maybe, but that doubles the time it takes to complete any given interval. I am in favor of the "Response" / "Focus Point" system to create a more organic flow instead of doubling the effort it takes to get through a period of time.

It might be a good idea to include those, yes, but what do you think about space carriers fulfilling that role? Perhaps a smaller boarding craft would be a good inclusion.

A carrier is great for an impromptu transport but realistically it will never be able to touch down, so you have to ferry troops around by shuttle. You want something just small enough to land on a planet, just big enough to carry a Company sized unit, and well-protected enough to enter hot LZs. There would also have to be special troop ships that remain orbital but deploy orbitally dropped forces--the "pod" system more or less universally adopted by Sci-Fi authors and games does seem pretty apt but is going to take up a lot of space better served by ordinance on warships--they might have small, squad or platoon sized contingents but big operations would need dedicated ships (or mature, big space vessels).

I'm not sure that boarding craft are really that feasible--if you mean something like an assault shuttle anyway. Those would generally be recognized as high priority threats and be taken down ASAP, but on the other hand if you're in the middle of a pitched battle with a swarm of drones, you might not notice them or have the time/resources to take them on. I'm willing to hear thoughts on the matter.

This isn't CIV, where you send a stack of helicopters at an enemy city. Complimentary unit types might be grouped together into a single "unit," and a military's strength might be listed in terms of those units. However, your previous arguments have pretty much explained why you don't think that'd be a good idea, so I'm just explaining it here so you can see what my train of thought was.

My intention is to force players to group units into military structures themselves, and keep track of their own organization, and then have them command those groups (be they Brigades, Regiments, Divisions, Corps, Armies, Army Groups, whatever) around in their orders, as I suggested in the staznesX thread. So in effect it's about the same thing as what you're suggesting. I am striving to get a "best of all worlds" package established.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Maybe, but that doubles the time it takes to complete any given interval. I am in favor of the "Response" / "Focus Point" system to create a more organic flow instead of doubling the effort it takes to get through a period of time.

I sort of like the idea of going perhaps 10 years in 20 turns, and then using a "BT" (or substitute a better term of your choice) to progress another couple of decades before slipping back into "IT," but I must admit that I'm also curious to see how the whole Focus Point idea will pan out.

I'm not sure that boarding craft are really that feasible--if you mean something like an assault shuttle anyway. Those would generally be recognized as high priority threats and be taken down ASAP, but on the other hand if you're in the middle of a pitched battle with a swarm of drones, you might not notice them or have the time/resources to take them on. I'm willing to hear thoughts on the matter.

The benefits of landing a unit of Marines inside an enemy ship are probably sufficient that a boarding craft concept will be thought up one way or another. I figure that a shield capable of defending against a couple of shots from a ship's point-defense weaponry is possible, and a military that placed a sufficiently low value on human life might be able to just send a swarm of them at an enemy capital ship.

My intention is to force players to group units into military structures themselves, and keep track of their own organization, and then have them command those groups (be they Brigades, Regiments, Divisions, Corps, Armies, Army Groups, whatever) around in their orders, as I suggested in the staznesX thread. So in effect it's about the same thing as what you're suggesting. I am striving to get a "best of all worlds" package established.

Best of all worlds indeed. It fails to take into account the level of participation that most players are willing to invest into a single NES... but I think I know what your response to that objection would be.

 

[Shadowbound]

The benefits of landing a unit of Marines inside an enemy ship are probably sufficient that a boarding craft concept will be thought up one way or another. I figure that a shield capable of defending against a couple of shots from a ship's point-defense weaponry is possible, and a military that placed a sufficiently low value on human life might be able to just send a swarm of them at an enemy capital ship.

If you can get a boarding craft past an enemy's shields, point defense weaponry, and other defenses, I think it'd just be more efficient to use a nuclear missile.

Boarding craft would have too high a casualty rate, if they were used, and so we'd likely see some unmanned drones that burrow into the ship's hull or some bio-engineered weapon that's attracted to large sources of energy (power plants).

 

[North King]

If you can get a boarding craft past an enemy's shields, point defense weaponry, and other defenses, I think it'd just be more efficient to use a nuclear missile.

A neutron weapon, perhaps. The capture as opposed to destruction of a ship could be a great asset to many navies.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

If you can get a boarding craft past an enemy's shields, point defense weaponry, and other defenses, I think it'd just be more efficient to use a nuclear missile.

Well, there would be some danger of the nuclear weapon frying your own ships, in that case. Once you're close enough to an enemy ship to not give them an opportunity to shoot down a nuclear missile, then you're probably too close for it to be a good idea to do so. I could see nukes being used as part of an ambush, or perhaps in minefields, but once battle has been joined I'm not sure how useful they'd be. However, this is really just an educated guess on my part, so it's certainly open to discussion.

Boarding craft would have too high a casualty rate, if they were used, and so we'd likely see some unmanned drones that burrow into the ship's hull or some bio-engineered weapon that's attracted to large sources of energy (power plants).

It'd depend on a lot of other factors, I think. In any case, those other two options seem more distantly futuristic.

 

[carmen510]

I've come back after a long downtime, so I can propose a new idea.

I've been thinking of creating an NES based on politics. This NES would take place in a fictional universe, where several countries (3-5) are divided into districts. Then, players lead their political parties to victory based on media, popular votes, positions on issues, etc. (Think like a simplified Die Macher) Each party will try to win as many districts as possible. The parties then get seats in their parliament based on how well they ran the election. The winning party gets their leader elected to the executive branch. After this happens, the ruling party heads the country to try and achieve their political positions via policies. If the opposition is numerous enough, they may block enough of the ruling party's legislature in order to hurt the opposition in the next election. The election process runs again, influenced by whatever happened in the past few years.

The nations themselves may be hostile or friendly to eachother, making policies more important.

There will also be special interest groups such as teachers unions or races that will influence some political parties.

Finally, random events will play a critical role in mixing up the politics of the election, anything from economic downturns to terrorist attacks to company contracts to scandals.

I'll probably have a rough copy of the rules by June, tell me if you're interested or not.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

I'd be interested.

 

[LightFang]

Politics NESes have come and go. How are you going to decide who wins? Won't we just pander to the moderator(s)'(s) political view to determine successful policies?

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Now I think about it, that's true. But doesn't it apply to any NES?

 

[LightFang]

Now I think about it, that's true. But doesn't it apply to any NES?

Not really. If you want to play a NES, you'll want to be faithful to the time period and try to follow general historical trends. It's something that requires diligence from both the player and the moderator. For example, I wasn't punished for my Ten-Year-Plan as USSR in A World Turned Upside Down; I really don't think communism is a terribly viable and efficient system (and nor do I think EQ thinks so), but that didn't mean that I was going to fall completely behind in everything. The USSR was able to at least keep the facade of military and strategic parity with the USA, something which I was able to do, I think, to a little extent.

 

[Symphony D.]

Well, there would be some danger of the nuclear weapon frying your own ships, in that case. Once you're close enough to an enemy ship to not give them an opportunity to shoot down a nuclear missile, then you're probably too close for it to be a good idea to do so. I could see nukes being used as part of an ambush, or perhaps in minefields, but once battle has been joined I'm not sure how useful they'd be. However, this is really just an educated guess on my part, so it's certainly open to discussion.

Very. Interstellar and even intersolar ships need strong radiation shielding anyway, both to combat natural elements and various forms of weaponry. In addition to ablation and destruction, they also pump out large amounts of electromagnetic noise that more or less blinds sensors (and space combat will rely on sensors; visual is totally useless), in addition to having some esoteric uses. The nuke is, in any serious engagement, going to be the weapon of choice, not the one of last resort. Radiation isn't ever going to get back to anywhere important (if outside the magnetosphere of a terra-type planet, anyway) and if a ship is severely irradiated you just scrap it our cycle out the hot bits. Whether it's traditional or neutron is immaterial; in either instance it's going to have to penetrate the ship to get past such shielding, and even a neutron bomb pumps out enough heat and blast to obliterate a ship. Both options are therefore de facto destructive. Ships are expensive, and you want them intact if that's your goal.

If you just want to scorch the crew then certain kinds of DEW are better, though they might irradiate the hull for quite some time, making salvage difficult.

If you want to capture an item, getting something inside, be it biological, chemical, or technical (which can be adapted for after the first few incidents) or a (trans-) human team is more or less essential.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Lightfang:
1- How can you be sure every player acts as you claim? A player of a country that lost out would not to want to follow historical trens geopolitically, and quite a lot of people would try and nudge their states in the way they think would be sucessful.

2- How can you be so sure moderators are unbiased?

Symphony D:
Now I think about it, have you factored for genetic or technological modification of humans?

 

[Abaddon]

On GodNES

Is there any way we could "dualNES" this, so that some people are actually playing as the nations?

 

[das]

Why? That would only overcomplicate it and detract significantly from the main point.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

I was going to say that might be entertaining, having Gods clashing over who wins wars, but it's hardly entertaining when it's a foregone thing.

 

[North King]

Politics NESes have come and go. How are you going to decide who wins? Won't we just pander to the moderator(s)'(s) political view to determine successful policies?

I thought I was okay at doing that. Maybe I was wrong.

 

[das]

Other than the "died early" bit, yes, you did great.

 

[LightFang]

Lightfang:
1- How can you be sure every player acts as you claim? A player of a country that lost out would not to want to follow historical trens geopolitically, and quite a lot of people would try and nudge their states in the way they think would be sucessful.

2- How can you be so sure moderators are unbiased?

1+2: Well, that's just the thing. Are you a person who likes to metagame and do OOC things, or do you play realistically? I know Symphony's the kind of guy who thinks that the point of NESing is to win, and in fact I agree: however the point is not to win by abusing the rules but rather, to me, the point is to win by accomplishing what your country's goals in a manner consistent with its history, leaders, etc. Whether or not the player or moderator is incompetent is not my worry.

I thought I was okay at doing that. Maybe I was wrong.

I don't remember your game. Maybe you did it well, I wouldn't know.

 

[carmen510]

Politics NESes have come and go. How are you going to decide who wins? Won't we just pander to the moderator(s)'(s) political view to determine successful policies?

Well, it depends on what you mean by 'win'. If you mean winning elections, then obviously its the election process.

If you mean 'winning' after the election, there really is no winning. What you want to do is to have a successful term to gain reelection, or to filibuster the ruling party to win the election. The election process continues on and on, but so do events that will challenge the parties.

 

[Symphony D.]

Now I think about it, have you factored for genetic or technological modification of humans?

Doesn't really make an ounce of difference in what types of weapons are fielded, merely what kind of features they have.

If you have genetic modification of pilots maybe you don't need a fluid-suspension cockpit for high gee maneuvers, but that doesn't change the fact you have a cockpit. Man-machine interfaces don't do much except eliminate the need for manual controls, cybernetics don't do anything to decrease the effectiveness of having an suit of armor and the kind of additional capacity it can bear, and so on.