New NESes, ideas, development, etc

So uh...where are the sample stats? :p
 
oops. there they are
 
Has anyone read the SM Sterling series that begins with "Dies the Fire"? It is an alt history that begins in 1998:

Dies the Fire chronicles the struggle of two groups who try to survive "The Change," a sudden worldwide event that alters physical laws so that electricity, gunpowder, and most other forms of high-energy-density technology no longer work. As a result, modern civilization comes crashing down.

In a nutshell, most of humanity dies from starvation and disease within two years as everything electrical or based on any form of the internal combustion engine ceases to work. Those who survive must rebuild using essential medieval technology.

This seems quite nice for a NES: modern society sensibilities and thinking, deteriorating modern stuff, no guns, engines, electricity, no modern communications, the collapse of all global, national, and regional systems and cultural structures, and the world reforming around local warlords.

Has this been done before?
 
Has anyone read the SM Sterling series that begins with "Dies the Fire"? It is an alt history that begins in 1998:



In a nutshell, most of humanity dies from starvation and disease within two years as everything electrical or based on any form of the internal combustion engine ceases to work. Those who survive must rebuild using essential medieval technology.

This seems quite nice for a NES: modern society sensibilities and thinking, deteriorating modern stuff, no guns, engines, electricity, no modern communications, the collapse of all global, national, and regional systems and cultural structures, and the world reforming around local warlords.

Has this been done before?

Yes. EQ&civfanatic tried it out for a few turns, it's on page 2 of the forums, although I don't think people would be sorry to see it brought back and done again.
 
Thanks, I go take a look.
 
His approach was interesting. Far more tactical and "personalized" than i imagined. I would have suggested beginning after the first year had passed and do 1 or 2 year turns. too bad it did not continue.
 
His approach was interesting. Far more tactical and "personalized" than i imagined. I would have suggested beginning after the first year had passed and do 1 or 2 year turns. too bad it did not continue.

I was among those that favored jumping ahead to proto-national states. If one were to do an NES based off of the Dies the Fire universe starting with the ability to create or take over actual nations or fiefdoms, I would definitely be interested. The tactical element was interesting, but the micromanagement that the first turn entailed I wasn't too excited about.
 
That was my thinking.
 
Would it allow players to create their own "nations", or would there be pre-sets?
I imagine that the starting locations would be limited to places supported by the book (islands, lands far from big cities etc.) and that in those locations players could set up any kind of fiefdom they choose. In most NESing players are trying to not let modern sensibilities get into the pre-modern settings, but in this alt history, the whole idea is that modern ideas are forced into a medieval context and then limited by tech.

The biggest issue is the inability of much across ocean or even across continent contact. Not much chance of Tasmania attacking Sri lanka or Ireland.
 
I imagine that the starting locations would be limited to places supported by the book (islands, far from big cities etc.) and that in those locations players could set up any kind of fiefdom they choose. In most NESing players are trying to not let modern sensibilities get into the pre-modern settings, but in this alt history, the whole idea is that modern ideas are forced into medieval context and then limited by tech.

The biggest issue is the inability of much across ocean or even across continent contact. Not much chance of Tasmania attacking Sri lanka or Ireland.

You might consider following the "cradle", tactic that seems to be popular in fresh start NESes, where players are limited to start in a certain area?
 
You might consider following the "cradle", tactic that seems to be popular in fresh start NESes, where players are limited to start in a certain area?

i think it would be good to limit the whole map into one focus area. like one cradle where everyone is in... and not multible craddle sprinkled over a worlmap
 
If the game was limited to a single continent that might work. I'd rather try to have a world based game and then use time (turn length) as the "flexible variable" to speed up and slow down contact. With technology capped at pre gunpowder, population growth becomes the key element for expansion.
 
Cradles work best if the world is unknown and players are expected to explore. In a known world the entire map should be available and used even if the starting locations are limited.

In Dies the Fire, pretty advanced ships would be available within a few decades enabling nations to with excess population to spread out and perhaps attack distant players. So if the game began with 5-6 two year turns followed by a 20 year turn, rinse and repeat, progress could be made early in the game.
 
Cradles work best if the world is unknown and players are expected to explore. In a known world the entire map should be available and used even if the starting locations are limited.

In Dies the Fire, pretty advanced ships would be available within a few decades enabling nations to with excess population to spread out and perhaps attack distant players. So if the game began with 5-6 two year turns followed by a 20 year turn, rinse and repeat, progress could be made early in the game.

When would this game be launched?
 
Moderator Action: Off topic chatter posts moved to WWW.

Go there for an answer to the question....
 
I’ve been thinking about a way to handle battles that would reduce the effort now required in orders and add some fun thinking to the process. It standardizes things, but would still allow for creativity. The system has six components:

1. A named general with a particular skill/experience level from 0 to 5
2. An army training level from 0 to 5
3. Attack/defend plans
4. Terrain
5. Army size ratio
6. Technology differentials

The system is built around the first three. For now I have 13 attack/defend plans:

Attacker Battle Plans
Frontal assault
Right/left envelopment
Double envelopment
Left/Right flank attack
Wave attack
Probe and thrust

Defender Battle Plans
Defend
Defend in depth
Double envelopment defense
Defend with reserves
Rear guard & withdrawal
Withdrawal
Entrenched

The ability to use a particular battle plan would be tied to both the skill/experience level of the general in the field and the training/experience of the troops. For example in order to choose a double envelopment plan the general might have to have a score of 4 and the troops 3. Inexperienced armies would be limited to the most basic battle plans. Battles would be the fastest way to improve (or not) the general or army scores. Adding lots of levies would diminish one’s battlefield options.

In orders a player would designate which plan they wanted their armies to use should a battle happen. So both armies could choose to attack (like Austerlitz) or both could defend and no battle would take place. The basic plans would be matched up as the first step of the resolution and then thinks like terrain, army size and troop mix, technology, and surprise would be factored in. Players could embellish the basic plans or perhaps have an alternate plan under specific circumstances.

My original intent was to use this in a Napoleonic era game, but it would work in most pre modern situations.

Thoughts, suggestions?
 
I tend to leave my generals up to their own devices, and argue with the mod, since my "army quality/tech/infra/whatever" is better, i should win...
 
Top Bottom