Game Preference Poll

[das]

Maximum Army/Levies/UU: 10000/20000/2000 2000
Current Army/Levies/UU: 5000/5000/1000/1000

The fourth numbers are here by mistake, yes?

culture impresses your neighbors.

It also impresses various minorities and increases coherence; let's not forget that. Nations with inferior cultures should be easier to assimilate post-conquest; superior culture should generally make assimilation easier.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The fourth numbers are here by mistake, yes?

Actually not; the label is wrong, I left out "mounted" between Levies and UU.

It also impresses various minorities and increases coherence; let's not forget that. Nations with inferior cultures should be easier to assimilate post-conquest; superior culture should generally make assimilation easier.

Yes, that is all true and is included.

 

[Swissempire]

I like the idea of unfolding. Like if it gets industrial, Manufacturing would become tre important, etc.

Also, can you explain the borders stat to me? I think i'm a little confused by it. Does it mean you can't tariff people and you have to trade with all or none? Because if i wanted to trade with country A but not Country B, am I allowed to do that?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I like the idea of unfolding. Like if it gets industrial, Manufacturing would become tre important, etc.

Also, can you explain the borders stat to me? I think i'm a little confused by it. Does it mean you can't tariff people and you have to trade with all or none? Because if i wanted to trade with country A but not Country B, am I allowed to do that?

At this point, I see nations as being able to close down their borders and stop all trade. This would take a nation off the trading grid. The default (and preferred) option is open borders with which a nation tradees with those nations that are appropriate to its location and contacts.

Selective trading is not an option since such things cannot be realistically policed (even today it is difficult). Once a caravan or ship leaves its "port" there is know way to control where it goes. Likewise when goods enter a port or city, there is know way to know where they came from or by what path.

Blockades and pirates will be the best way to affect the trade of other nations.

 

[alex994]

Our embargo on Cuba isn't working? That's a shock for me

Have you made a decision on the cradles yet?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Have you made a decision on the cradles yet?

What decision?

 

[Birdjaguar]

In most NESes it is not only possible, but expected that a nation can endure over many centuries with few set backs. Of course history is rarely like that. A couple of hundred years is more likely. In game terms that is a problem. If anupdate is 100 years, then most players would have come and gone by update #5 replaced by either new players or NPCs that have. So my question to you all is how important is the ebb and flow of empires to a game? Should the game be structured to encourage that kind of turnover or should more traditional NESing be planned for?

Now it may be possible for players to plan on their own successor nations too. New dynasties or even conquest from within could be planned by players.

Any opinions out there?

 

[alex994]

I prefer the more traditional NESing where players plan for their successor nations and deliberately screw over their nations after a long time or even in a short period

If they refuse to do that, the mod is free to let loose the dogs of war and famine and smite the country from the face of the earth. However, I would be dead against having another player take over MY culture and MY people.

It may just be me, but if you tell me that a few updates down the line the culture and people I've worked so hard to build with stories and etc will cease to be mine and become someone else's because they're a different player then I simply wouldn't join. Not exactly the biggest fan of handing over cultures to other people I am.

 

[das]

As a radical option, might make sense to have a player play a civilisation rather than a nation. Kind of like what was done in AFSNES. Changes up to the level of ethnic composition and religion (to say nothing of actual nations) are in, but some cultural continuity is preserved as a norm. The main problem is that not even I have any concrete idea as to how it should be done exactly.

Somewhat more feasibly, how about using the stability stat (well, maybe a better name would be in order, but I'm not sure as to which) to impose your will give the players a fair warning? I.e. at first a nation is ascendant, then it might start to stagnate or enter a golden age (depends on lots of circumstances, including player actions ofcourse), and eventually, in all the probability, come into a period of drastic decline. At which point a player might try to pull through a renaissance (won't always work, ofcourse; the Egyptian 26th dynasty obviously tried and as obviously failed, for instance), or switch to another nation, or oversee the collapse and move on with one of the successor states (frequently compatible with renaissance, but again, not always).

 

[Lord_Iggy]

That sounds like a cool idea.

 

[Birdjaguar]

As a radical option, might make sense to have a player play a civilisation rather than a nation. Kind of like what was done in AFSNES. Changes up to the level of ethnic composition and religion (to say nothing of actual nations) are in, but some cultural continuity is preserved as a norm. The main problem is that not even I have any concrete idea as to how it should be done exactly.

Somewhat more feasibly, how about using the stability stat (well, maybe a better name would be in order, but I'm not sure as to which) to impose your will give the players a fair warning? I.e. at first a nation is ascendant, then it might start to stagnate or enter a golden age (depends on lots of circumstances, including player actions ofcourse), and eventually, in all the probability, come into a period of drastic decline. At which point a player might try to pull through a renaissance (won't always work, ofcourse; the Egyptian 26th dynasty obviously tried and as obviously failed, for instance), or switch to another nation, or oversee the collapse and move on with one of the successor states (frequently compatible with renaissance, but again, not always).

A civilization focus rather than a nation focus would allow players to manage a series of "nations" of similar culture over time: Roman Republic --> Roman Empire --> Byzantine Empire. I have a stability stat that will indicate the potential for the break up of the nation.

Would players object to the ebb and flow of name changes? It might get very confusing, but a more realistic flow of rise and fall might be very cool.

I see a turn unfolding like so:
1. Orders sent that include: Updated king list and family tree; spending and action by each ruler during their reign. (Generally players will determine how long a king rules.)
2. Spending and action of first 25 years applied: Update one and map completed
3. Spending and action of 2nd 25 years applied: Update two and map completed
4. Spending and action of 3rd 25 years applied: Update three and map completed
5. Spending and action of last 25 years applied: Update four completed
6. Ending stats, map and "state of the world" information posted

There would be no diplo or pause between these updates, so players would be committed to orders and contingencies as originally submitted.

Essentially, players are planning and committing to actions for four turns at a time so we can move along at a 100 year pace. Many details typically part of orders become meaningless and unnecessary and will be lost in the big picture. Wars will be confined to a small part of an update and victories could be completely undone by later actions. A great warrior king could double an empire in size only to have it collapse 50 years later.

What do you al think of a game that would progress along these lines?

 

[Abaddon]

I would heartily reccomend a long set of BT, into a IT like Das has done.

The ability to try an plan for a nation hundred and hundreds of years away, a lot toyed with growth and destruction.

 

[das]

Would players object to the ebb and flow of name changes?

People change nation names all the time in fresh start NESes that last long enough, so I can't imagine there being any major problems on this front.

As to the turn, I again must state that it's all rather silly and redundant. That is to say, the general idea is good, but why arbitrarily divide the update and the turn if it still is, de facto, one turn and one update only? The main idea is good ofcourse, but that is just silly.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

I don't want a starting BT.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I would heartily reccomend a long set of BT, into a IT like Das has done.

The ability to try an plan for a nation hundred and hundreds of years away, a lot toyed with growth and destruction.

Players would only plan 100 years at a time. If the goal is actually begin at the late Bronze age and actually move game play through 2-3,000 years, then either you have IT and BT phases or longer turns. The problem I see with the IT/BT method is that for most of the game (in years) players have little control over what happens to their "nation". I am trying to mix IT and BT strategies in a single 100 year update so players can have more control over the whole span of the game and 10 updates will show significant change in the state of the world.

I want to include an ancient age in the game. And I don't see any reason for me to shape the out come of 2000 years of BT. But if players feel differently then I certainly need to change my approach.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I've got to got out for a while and will respond later. das what are you doing up at 2:30 AM?

 

[LittleBoots]

I don't really see why we need to fast-forward through much of the ancient period, but perhaps thats just me.

Also, I definitely support the civilization idea.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Yeah, I do as well.

 

[Symphony D.]

It's interesting to watch most of the same concepts be independently discovered, though the differences in them are rather vast...

 

[Abaddon]

Bird, i don't think many see the lack of progression though history as a problem.

I like to be able to focus on year by year events - heck i'd even go as far as seasonal if possible.

I'd be sure to play in any NES you were involved in, but as usual i don't follow your concerns