BirdNES 3: Discussions & Questions

[Ninja Dude]

Sending out a few ships is a heck of a lot of easier than what you are trying to compare it to.

Any before anyone snaps my jaws too much, I am merely carrying on the previous players work.. I didn't start the colonies.

Then you should have realized that the idea of Chinese overseas colonization, ESPECIALLY at this age, is ridiculous. There was no need or want for it, and I still never understood why it was undertaken in this NES in the first place.

 

[Adrogans]

Because colonizing is fun. Course I will never colonize in this NES though it would be hilarious.

EDIT- I suppose I should put a sarcasm warning just in case.

 

[Immaculate]

From http://www.livescience.com/7002-map-fuels-debate-chinese-sail-world.html

In his bestselling book, "1421: The Year China Discovered America," British amateur historian Gavin Menzies turns the story of the Europeans' discovery of America on its ear with a startling idea: Chinese sailors beat Christopher Columbus to the Americas by more than 70 years. The book has generated controversy within the halls of scholarship. Anthropologists, archaeologists, historians and linguists alike have debunked much of the evidence that Menzies used to support his notion, which has come to be called the 1421 theory.

But where did Menzies come up with the idea that it was Asians, not Europeans, who first arrived in America from other countries? It's been long held by scholars that it was people from Asia who first set foot in North America, but not in the way that Menzies describes. Sometime 10,000 years ago or more, people of Asian origination are believed to have crossed over the Bering land bridge from Siberia to what is now Alaska. From there, they are believed to have spread out over the course of millennia, diverging genetically and populating North and South America.

But Menzies' 1421 theory supposes much more direct influence from China. Rather than civilization evolving separately in the Americas and Asia, under the 1421 theory, China was directly involved in governance and trade with the peoples of the Americas with whom they shared their ancestry.

So what evidence does he have to support this notion? It's Menzie's belief that one merely has to refer to certain maps to see the light.

A full 30 years before Gavin Menzies published his book, Baptist missionary Dr. Hendon M. Harris perused the curiosities in a shop in Taiwan. It was there he made an amazing discovery: a map that looked to be ancient, written in classical Chinese and depicting what to Harris was clearly North America. It was a map of Fu Sang, the legendary land of Chinese fable.

Fu Sang is to the Chinese what Atlantis is to the West -- a mythical land that most don't believe existed, but for which enough tantalizing (yet vague) evidence exists to maintain popularity for the idea. The map the missionary discovered -- which has come to be known as the Harris map -- showed that Fu Sang was located exactly where North America is. Even more amazingly, some of the features shown on the map of Fu Sang look a lot like geographical anomalies unique to North America, such as the Grand Canyon.

As if the Harris map weren't suggestive enough, other maps have also surfaced. It's a specific map that Menzies points to as definitive proof that the Chinese had already explored the world long before the Europeans ever set sail in the age of exploration. This map, known as the 1418 map -- so called for the date it was supposedly published -- clearly shows all of the world's oceans, as well as all seven continents, correct in shape and situation. Even more startling is the map's accurate depiction of features of North America, including the Potomac River in the Northeast of the present-day United States.

Menzies believes that not only had the Chinese already explored the world before Columbus and other European explorers, but that it was with Chinese maps that the Europeans were able to circumnavigate the globe. Armed with the map as his flagship evidence, Menzies points out plenty of other artifacts that point to Chinese pre-Columbian occupation in the Americas.

 

[spryllino]

What a load of twaddle. Also irrelevant because China colonising is implausible even if it explored.

 

[North King]

...Ugh.

Link 1
Link 2

Do not bring up Gavin Menzies if you ever want to be taken seriously in any kind of historical debate. He doesn't do research, he doesn't give a flying crap about historicity. He wants to sell books, and unfortunately he's done that.

 

[Ninja Dude]

hahahah wait hes serious

 

[sophie]

...you are aware that Gavin Menzies is one of the most ridiculed "historians" in academia right now, and that most of those pieces of "evidence" have since been identified as either dating way younger than 15th century or else being blatant forgeries, right?

...RIGHT?!?!?!?!

 

[Kentharu]

Zheng HEEEEEEEEE

*Salutes*

 

[Immaculate]

I NEVER wrote that i agreed with it or thought it factual; Note the lack of introduction- i purposefully left it open to see if anyone would take up the argument.

I merely wanted to add that colonization of America by China has already been proposed.

Again, i NEVER said that there was any validity to the argument or the book so please don't suggest that i ever argued that point. I have my pride after all.

 

[Terrance888]

The Harris map looks to make a good fantasy map if you turn it upsidedown.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Bird, your last post there completely misses the main, central issue, which is the basic principle of adhering to historical plausibility and not having things happen that don't make any sense. Are you trying to be plausible?

If so, try harder. If not, you should.

My post was an answer to specific quesions asked about the game in general, my model and my game concept. I have not addressed the question of whether my game does/does not, should or should not follow a more rigid model of 16th century economics.

What is somewhat amusing to me is that I have never seen any NES with an economic model that even approached reality. There may be some, but I have not seen them. Those I've played are all very simple and designed to facilitate game play and easy upkeep. The closest attempt is PerfNES with its "no economic system" approach and essentially two stats: money and prestige. I find it very interesting, in spite of the "fantasy" setting, and want to see how it plays out over more than a few turns.

The issue of limiting nations to some approximation of historical ecomomic boundaries is a design question that is built around how one wants the players to act and the degree of freedom one gives to the players. The more one constrains player ability to drive economic growth, the less important are all the potential economic decisions. If it is not a stat or if it is not a stat one can change or cause to be changed, then for game play purposes it is irrelevant.

If I am reading all this correctly, much of the objection to my game, as expressed in this thread, is that I have allowed players the ability to affect their economies in meaningful ways that affect game play and allow for non historical economic growth.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I realize that this may seem like a good idea. But it's really not taking into account how the economy of that time actually worked. You can't just invest a whole ton of money in the economy¹ and expect it to grow like that, leastaways not domestically.² The idea that England on its own could equal the French Monarchy in spending is completely ridiculous.³

This is not a "good" thing; it does not enhance player freedom. Player freedom⁴ does not lie in being able to do anything you want. That's called "god mode". Player freedom lies in being able to try anything you want. If you have a senile and wacky Emperor of China, it's perfectly all right if the player tries to launch him to the moon with the use of gunpowder rockets. If you have a King of Spain who really wants everyone to be his friend, he can send off the silver convoys to land in Southampton instead of Cadiz.⁵

But what you shouldn't have is the Irish investing so much into their economy⁶ that they can suddenly compete with Venice, despite the fact that Ireland is poorly positioned for continental trade, doesn't have particularly fertile soils, etc.



No one's saying you're a bad mod, Bird. We're just pushing you to make it better.⁷ If a player is doing something interesting but not historical, then reward them!⁸ If they're doing something interesting but completely idiotic ("King James I wakes up today and he says, 'what a good day for a Scientific Revolution!'"), then make the negative repercussions real!⁹ But if you're just letting players extremely easily surmount the challenges of real, historical times, then aren't you just cheapening their eventual success?¹⁰



No one's talking about the New World being redrawn.

What we're talking about is that when you let a player invest into his economy and, with no other changes, achieve unrealistic rates of growth, you're making the NES less fun. Yes, even for metagamers!

Because what you're really doing isn't "improving player freedom", you're reducing the entire game down to a wargame between constantly growing economies and armies. Sure, you're making it a little more complicated than build SCVs, mine minerals, repeat -- you're making them invest in more than one thing, but instead of an interesting simulation or even a board game based on the era, you're reducing things to a linear game where luck (who figures out your black box first) determines the success of the player.

Or do you really think the player who invests into tea instead of coffee and because of some quirk of the black box gets a bigger boost is being more intelligent than the other?¹¹



Don't worry, that is the beauty of a forum.

Spoiler Footnotes so people don't nitpick: :

¹ Regardless of WHERE you invest it, regardless of INTO HOW MANY THINGS you invest it.

² Economic growth, if you do not somehow increase your resources through conquest, is extremely minimal for this period.

³ Taking into account EVERYTHING. Colonies are not typically rich enough to make up for this gap in the 1500s.

⁴ As I define it of course.

⁵ Assuming these technologies and silver mines. Please, it's a hypothetical, not a commentary on the actual situation of the NES. I stopped following this NES after Bird went along with redrawing the Americas. So sue me.<sup>12

6</sup> Through diverse means.

⁷ Better meaning higher quality and more interesting for the player base.

⁸ Within reason.

⁹ This is a historical NES, not a steampunk NES.

¹⁰ Eventual success meaning they end up with comfy chairs.

¹¹ Yes, I am AWARE THAT THIS IS NOT AN EXAMPLE FROM THE NES.

¹² I'm still commenting on it because I care about NESing.

tl;dr for the footnotes, figure out what I'm actually saying instead of arguing semantics.

Thank you for the thoughtful post.

 

[Thlayli]

The closest attempt is PerfNES with its "no economic system" approach and essentially two stats: money and prestige. I find it very interesting, in spite of the "fantasy" setting, and want to see how it plays out over more than a few turns.

I know you're a mod and all, but this statement isn't really grounded in reality. And you might be more than a little jealous that the historicity of Perfectionist's NES is superior to that of your own.

 

[Dachs]

What is somewhat amusing to me is that I have never seen any NES with an economic model that even approached reality. There may be some, but I have not seen them. Those I've played are all very simple and designed to facilitate game play and easy upkeep. The closest attempt is PerfNES with its "no economic system" approach and essentially two stats: money and prestige.

We've got several, unrelated threads in this paragraph.

First thing is that apparently you don't understand what a "model" is. Models do not simulate real processes; they simulate real outcomes. All that is important for a "realistic" economic model in a NES is that it spits out plausible numbers at the end. Whether it is pencil-and-paper, spreadsheet, or pulled out of the mod's ass is irrelevant to how realistic the numbers are. Realism is not diametrically opposed to simplicity; on the contrary. The most complicated model in the world is worthless from a "realism" standpoint if the numbers it spits out are nonsense. This is a more extreme form of what's being alleged in this thread.

So in that context, the "simplicity" of PerfNES (or its - to flatter myself - forerunner DaNES II) is no bar to "realism" as far as the economy goes. In fact, I would argue that PerfNES' economy is much more "realistic" than BirdNES 3's. In that NES, the budgets of states are actually good approximations of historical budgets, and they scale appropriately based on various criteria, including natural resources, tax base, and the ability of a given government to extract wealth based on things like centralization. The end-result number is basically right. The process Perfectionist used to come to that end-result number is irrelevant; it might be a huge spreadsheet, it might be a set of notes in Notepad, it might be extracted from his rectal cavity. Doesn't matter.

I also object to the idea that PerfNES (and DaNES) rely(/ied) on "no" economic system. What exactly is your definition of an economic system? If, to be an "economic system", the player needs to be able to wave her hand and say "I will invest X 'into my economy'" and see growth the next turn, as if by magic, then actual economics do not approximate an economic system. In order to get more money by spending money, the thing you're spending it on has to have an actual yield, and only after some time will it express those changes in the tax base; this is basic fiscal policy. Yet in neither of those NESes does (did) the player have absolutely no impact on the amount of money she gains each year.

If I am reading all this correctly, much of the objection to my game, as expressed in this thread, is that I have allowed players the ability to affect their economies in meaningful ways that affect game play and allow for non historical economic growth.

No, the objection does not lie in its nonhistoricity; that would be nonsensical. No player, save for the player of an EQ NES, wants to play in a NES on rails. The objection lies in its antihistoricity, that is to say, its embrace of outcomes that are literally impossible, not just that did not happen or that are implausible.

 

[Masada]

What is somewhat amusing to me is that I have never seen any NES with an economic model that even approached reality.

As a professional economist who has maintained economics models I'm happy to report that reality is vastly overrated, especially when the banner of 'realism' here is hitched to the expontential growth post. But feel free to ignore me, I'm just a professional.

 

[Abaddon]

I do find it amusing how certain people can be, about something so vague as a NES.

It a made up game!!!

 

[Dreadnought]

Gentlemen, while I don't want to sound like "that guy", maybe we should keep this conversation civil, and not make it personal?

Sometimes, people won't listen to your argument, even if it is well-constructed and reasonable; if that is the case, ignore said people. Making personal attacks doesn't better the discussion or the community. Some people just can't be reasoned with; exclude them from the discussion and move on.

 

[Northen Wolf]

And in the end, it's only a game. I think BirdJ did good job at moderating it.

If you found some mistakes and problems - and these problems annoy you. And your "historical major" or "wikipedia l33t skillz" give you access to much better knowledge, more accurate stats and true knowledge, then stop whining about how historically inaccurate this NES was and run a nes of this scale yourself, that WOULD fulfill your requirements.

I think BJ did good job.

Just my 3 euro cents.

 

[spryllino]

My post was an answer to specific quesions asked about the game in general, my model and my game concept. I have not addressed the question of whether my game does/does not, should or should not follow a more rigid model of 16th century economics.

But the more central point is whether you are trying to be plausible at all. Not just in economics, but also in terms of the scale of colonisation and wierd things like completely insane diplomatic incidents that happen for no reason.

And you should be addressing that, because that is what is being primarily criticised. In saying "My post was an answer to specific quesions asked about the game in general, my model and my game concept", you basically mean that you missed the point.

What is somewhat amusing to me is that I have never seen any NES with an economic model that even approached reality. There may be some, but I have not seen them. Those I've played are all very simple and designed to facilitate game play and easy upkeep. The closest attempt is PerfNES with its "no economic system" approach and essentially two stats: money and prestige. I find it very interesting, in spite of the "fantasy" setting, and want to see how it plays out over more than a few turns.

The issue of limiting nations to some approximation of historical ecomomic boundaries is a design question that is built around how one wants the players to act and the degree of freedom one gives to the players. The more one constrains player ability to drive economic growth, the less important are all the potential economic decisions. If it is not a stat or if it is not a stat one can change or cause to be changed, then for game play purposes it is irrelevant.

What Dachs said.

If I am reading all this correctly, much of the objection to my game, as expressed in this thread, is that I have allowed players the ability to affect their economies in meaningful ways that affect game play and allow for non historical economic growth.

Largely, yes. Because letting them do that is completely mad and makes the game completely unfair. How can any player devise suitable plans for his nation that would have a reasonable effect when he can achieve just as much, if not more, by thinking up some utterly atrocious plan that makes no plausible sense and then carrying it out despite it being a stupid plan? This rewards stupid and bad players who think they can do things with their nations that are dumb and contrary to any common or historical sense, and therefore penalises players who do things that make sense and who steer away from OOC plans like that. Therefore, you are bound at that rate to lose players who know what they're doing, and even the less ignorant of the rest will start to quit when they see that whatever sensible plans and good strategy they can come up with are getting them precisely nowhere.

 

[Terrance888]

Why are people assume that strategies that don't make sense work? I just want to clarify that.