First off, Jehoshua is right, not every nation had a two party system, and quite a few were noted to have coalitions in the various updates. I simply asked for the major parties of the various states, and worked with what was provided. Actually yeah, the coups were the reason why I had to design the new political/unrest system which started in 1938. The old system was mostly based on the stability stat which had looked something like this for a good long while now:
Stability (Rolled with two dice)
Rolls above limit cause problems
1 Above: None
2-3 Above: Protests and Demonstrations
4-6 Above: Rioting or assassination attempt
7-8 Above: Localized regional or nationalist revolt
9-10 Above: Multiple regional or nationalist revolts
11+: Anarchy and national collapse
The system had numerous flaws and discrepancies, which led to situations like the "Accidental Revolution" in Scandinavia and the American Crisis. Feedback on these events is what led me to redo the system to the new one which was introduced partially in 1938ish. The system in this case was a holdout system from A Brave New World, and I just never really bothered changing it until I started work on the new system about a year ago. I understand quite a few flaws in the setup which led to inherently incorrect circumstances. To do a proper postmortem, here are what I view as the primary mistakes I've made in the management of the NES:
1. Not developing a proper backstory. You're right in saying that anything's possible in an infinite multiverse is a hand-wave. My goal from the beginning was to develop an interesting scenario, and not a plausible one. That aside, regardless of whether or not the Byzantines and Aztecs survived, I should have created a more elaborate backstory from the beginning to give context the world's circumstances.
2. Not adopting a new system for at least the 1920-1939 stage of the NES' stability. I had the stability stuff all working by then, but was waiting to change it all over at once. It wouldn't have stopped the two events I mentioned above, but you probably would have noticed a bit more stable of a world during this timeframe.
3. Not ending the NES 10 updates ago. Just as the Reclamation War started, it became clear to me that the NES' advancement would not let me get things to where I wanted to get them. Instead, my attention to the NES became a bit more half-assed and I was less inclined to put greater thought into things. Personally, that was about the time I stopped having fun, and I had been staking everything on the Second Great War to make things fun for me again, which proved to be irrelevant, since I wouldn't have time for that either.
As for the NPCs, yeah, that's something I've always had trouble with, and I don't think it helped that at its height, CI had around 65 active NPCs. I just was not prepared for the level of NPC management that entailed. I overreached with that, and frankly, it's one of the key reasons that the NES just takes too much time and effort. Here I can admit some clear bias. NPCs that I was more interested in, such as Madagascar in CIEN or Cuba in the latest phase, got priority to me when I was thinking about how those nations would proceed. I'm openly admitting, NPCs have always been a challenge for me as a moderator, and it's been hard to keep from playing favorites when I have to dedicate time to figure out what the NPCs want/need to do.
Mostly, spryllino, beyond the political party bit, I don't disagree with what you say. I rarely blocked players' actions, even when their own governments would not have let them do it. I have attempted to on multiple occasions advise players against courses of actions that would be unwise, but unfortunately, this puts me between a rock and a hard place. If I outright block the actions of a player, or even advise against them, I receive the complaint "Stop railroading us." If I allow said player to undertake foolish action, I get your complaint. At this point, I've reached a point where I don't want to create a no-win situation for myself needlessly. Obviously, I couldn't voice this in the past, because I didn't want to alienate one sect of players over the other, as both complaints are valid in the context. If I outright stopped someone from invading someone else, I could easily be accused of "herding them" into a given role or situation. Hell, even just advising against it could be perceived as railroading. Let's say I let the invasion go forward, and someone else says something along the lines of "there's no way _______'s legislature would have let them get away with that." I wish I could have stated this before, but as said, I was concerned about alienating members of the NES. Both complaints would be valid in the context, and either way, there's someone complaining about the way I do things. So really, do I block or don't block? I can name a dozen things off the top of my head that NESers throughout CI have done that should have been politically impossible. Of course, at the same time, I can name plenty of things I HAVE blocked, or tried to block, which have cost the NES players. The joy of being a moderator in an NES like this.
). Most of the other criticisms you mention have some (be it lesser or greater) merit, particularly I agree with regards to legislatures not blocking the player executive (in states that are "democratic'), the complete freedom of the player in this situation saw some strange incongruities (like in Burgundy *cough*). I don't really agree with your assessment though that NPC's were all complaisant or completely un-cooperative, having engaged with a good number as Il Papa. (Your experience I think depends on precisely what you requested)
Anywho, it may be for the best, and I will never forget the fun I've had with CI, and I do indeed greatly appreciate the work EQ has done with it, haters be damned.
