Game Preference Poll

[andis-1]

lurker's comment: And where is your update, Sir?

 

[das]

See AFSNES thread. It still is quite bogged down. Work is ongoing, however.

 

[Birdjaguar]

How do people feel about having the game start at an equivalent to about 1200 BC?

 

[JosefStalinator]

How do people feel about having the game start at an equivalent to about 1200 BC?

Depends; is that when our civilizations are first founded, or is it assumed they have been there for a while?

And I think most of us want a map first .

 

[Birdjaguar]

Depends; is that when our civilizations are first founded, or is it assumed they have been there for a while?

And I think most of us want a map first .

The map is some time away, but discussion can be good for thinking through potential problems. Yes, a bronze age start does imply a couple of thousand years of history. So should players create their nations for that start date, or are you suggesting a BT or two to bring them forward from some earlier point?

Here is an idea:

Since every nation has its roots in some place that was essentially chosen for particular qualities and not because it was somewhere in particular in the world, perhaps we should begin this game like that. Players would post a description of the earliest taking shape of their nation and the kind of place where that happened. Things like “a broad river valley with nearby mountains” or “on a large island with rich fishing grounds” or in trackless plains of tall grass and herds of game”.

Then, based on those, I do a BT to move them forward to the game start. When that is finished they go on the map in a place that matches their start and BT? Like RL, players would discover where they are in the world only after they put down roots and begin to build their nation.

 

[JosefStalinator]

The map is some time away, but discussion can be good for thinking through potential problems. Yes, a bronze age start does imply a couple of thousand years of history. So should players create their nations for that start date, or are you suggesting a BT or two to bring them forward from some earlier point?

Here is an idea:

Since every nation has its roots in some place that was essentially chosen for particular qualities and not because it was somewhere in particular in the world, perhaps we should begin this game like that. Players would post a description of the earliest taking shape of their nation and the kind of place where that happened. Things like “a broad river valley with nearby mountains” or “on a large island with rich fishing grounds” or in trackless plains of tall grass and herds of game”.

Then, based on those, I do a BT to move them forward to the game start. When that is finished they go on the map in a place that matches their start and BT? Like RL, players would discover where they are in the world only after they put down roots and begin to build their nation.

You're gonna need alot of rivers and deltas meeting the sea, then . Honestly I think it's better to do the map first and let the players choose their locations on the traditional first come, first serve basis.

As for a BT beforehand? I suppose that's up to you, but I wouldn't mind a sort of preliminary, no orders BT where the nations (and some NPC's) establish themselves.

 

[North King]

Since every nation has its roots in some place that was essentially chosen for particular qualities and not because it was somewhere in particular in the world, perhaps we should begin this game like that. Players would post a description of the earliest taking shape of their nation and the kind of place where that happened. Things like “a broad river valley with nearby mountains” or “on a large island with rich fishing grounds” or in trackless plains of tall grass and herds of game”.

Then, based on those, I do a BT to move them forward to the game start. When that is finished they go on the map in a place that matches their start and BT? Like RL, players would discover where they are in the world only after they put down roots and begin to build their nation.

This is actually an idea that I've tried before on a random map NES. It actually worked beautifully, and people seemed pleased with the results; there were only one real problem: I hadn't concentrated environments enough, so people were spread all over the map. If you did a better job than I did in terms of concentrating climates (which wouldn't be hard, as the map was deliberately somewhat splayed about: probably not the best place to have used this idea for the first time ).

 

[Birdjaguar]

You're gonna need alot of rivers and deltas meeting the sea, then . Honestly I think it's better to do the map first and let the players choose their locations on the traditional first come, first serve basis.

As for a BT beforehand? I suppose that's up to you, but I wouldn't mind a sort of preliminary, no orders BT where the nations (and some NPC's) establish themselves.

This is actually an idea that I've tried before on a random map NES. It actually worked beautifully, and people seemed pleased with the results; there were only one real problem: I hadn't concentrated environments enough, so people were spread all over the map. If you did a better job than I did in terms of concentrating climates (which wouldn't be hard, as the map was deliberately somewhat splayed about: probably not the best place to have used this idea for the first time ).

If players posted nation and types of locations desired, before the map was completed, then the cradles and the number needed could based on the initialplayers and built into the map. The locations of players thoughwould be somewhat of a surprise.

Maybe a sequence like this:
Rules and game description
Player sign up with initial nation decriptions
BT period and map finalization
Map locations assigned
Map posted
Game begns.

 

[North King]

Well, that would be a pain in the butt for the mapmaker...

 

[JosefStalinator]

Like NK said, if you're willing to go through the effort, go right ahead. It definitely has great potential. Maybe you can pawn map-making duties off to Symphy so he can show off his latest little obsession .

 

[LightFang]

You can't; he'll be all "that'd be making me do what you want me to do, instead of what I want me to do" or something.

 

[carmen510]

How do you know he doesn't want to do it?

Don't draft me, I'll probably make blobs for continents.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, certainly the goal would not be to make mapmaking more difficult.The purpose would be to make a more uncertain and interesting start for players. I guess then that the best way would be to to just "force" player starts into whatever land was closest to what they anticipated and yet keep the plyers within the bounds of the cradles.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Question: If EP represent government spending shouldn't they just be tax revenue and therefore one step removed from whatever the economy is producing?

 

[JosefStalinator]

Question: If EP represent government spending shouldn't they just be tax revenue and therefore one step removed from whatever the economy is producing?

The economy has to produce it to tax it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The economy has to produce it to tax it.

Of course. But by separating economic growth and investment from spendable revenue (taxes) it might solve the "big number" problem of having nations able to spend 10-15 EP in a turn and the costs of things being out of wack at that level. It would also give players an easy way to add to income in an emergency: raise taxes.

I'm fishing for ideas here.

 

[JosefStalinator]

Of course. But by separating economic growth and investment from spendable revenue (taxes) it might solve the "big number" problem of having nations able to spend 10-15 EP in a turn and the costs of things being out of wack at that level. It would also give players an easy way to add to income in an emergency: raise taxes.

I'm fishing for ideas here.

Government revenue is just a percent of economic activity you are able to tax. I suppose if you wanted to make it so more tax means less economic growth, but that won't solve the problem of big economies being able to spend more.

If you want to offset costs, make it so there's an exponentially growing "Population" and "Area" modifier that affects the costs of growing stats.

 

[das]

Without commenting on anything else yet, for obvious reasons...

that won't solve the problem of big economies being able to spend more.

How is that a problem?

 

[JosefStalinator]

Without commenting on anything else yet, for obvious reasons...



How is that a problem?

I suppose I shoulda put some quotes around problem to emphasize my sarcasm .

 

[Birdjaguar]

Government revenue is just a percent of economic activity you are able to tax. I suppose if you wanted to make it so more tax means less economic growth, but that won't solve the problem of big economies being able to spend more.

If you want to offset costs, make it so there's an exponentially growing "Population" and "Area" modifier that affects the costs of growing stats.

The game effect I think I want is higher taxes should mean more money to spend, but an unhappier population. Economic growth would be "funded" by spending on things that drive growth, but the player decides whether or not to capture that gtrowth through taxes or not. The domestic economy could be taxed differently than trade.

This raises the question of how important (in the game) should a "happy" population be and should fear of rebellion be a significant factor in game play? I pretty much ignored this in BirdNES.

Using population and size as drivers for some costs works nicely and is appropriately for things like improving infrastructure, roads, farmland, government bureaucracy etc.

In any ancient age, education was limited to such a small group of people, that it shouldn't be population driven and its effcts should be pretty focused.