Game Preference Poll

[alex994]

I think there should be a difference for troops overseas stationed in your overseas possessions than elsewhere. I kinda got pissed paying for all that upkeep after a while even though it was JUST ACROSS A LITTLE STRAIT

Other nations didn't have to pay fees when their armies were campaigning hundreds of miles away because they were still connected via land

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think there should be a difference for troops overseas stationed in your overseas possessions than elsewhere. I kinda got pissed paying for all that upkeep after a while even though it was JUST ACROSS A LITTLE STRAIT

Other nations didn't have to pay fees when their armies were campaigning hundreds of miles away because they were still connected via land

I don't disagree, how would you suggest structuring the costs?

 

[alex994]

Off the top of my head, you could raise the number of troops in overseas possessions before you begin charging.

There should also be a "maintenance" cost for the overseas Empire depending on how that country rules it (through local leaders, bureaucrats, military rule and etc) that would reflects the cost of rule and might encourage people to sell off their colonies and territories if they aren't making enough to cover the cost of ruling it

 

[JosefStalinator]

^What Alex said. There were points in history where colonies fluctuated between profitable and costly.

Of course, players could also ignore this for reasons like the scramble for Africa; manpower and prestige .

 

[a_propagandist]

There should be something of a distance and supply factor. Depending on how many routes there are, the total distance, and the terrain between, a price should be calculated so.

 

[LightFang]

Screw calculation; let the moderator arbitrarily assign a cost.

 

[das]

Okay, time for commentage.

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

Depends on what do you mean under that... An advanced start? A post-Dark Age start? Or simply Iron Age start?

Still, I personally think that given your system it would be best to start in a 2000 BC equivalent, both technologically and historically.

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.

The idea is largely approved, though I again question the need for a BT within your system; the other problems here have already been covered.

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.

Note that people generally get used to high taxes (well, within reasonable limits ofcourse); it's actually the raising of the taxes that causes the most dissent. Remember - humans are extremelly complacent; all historical rebellions were ultimately caused by outside change.

I do believe that various complicated social processes - including rebellions - should be covered in more detail; sadly, I am not sure as to how exactly it should be done. Still, perhaps some sort of stability stat would help? Wars, natural disasters, reforms (in this case meaning drastic changes of policy), conflicted social change and so forth will naturally decrease social stability, making rebellions and radicalism in general all the more likely (but also untying the government's hands, I suppose; same reforms are far easier to pull off when you don't have much to lose in the terms of stability).

In practice though, the moderator would almost certainly have to enforce it actively ("No, sorry, rewrite it"), which is the same net effect as making a stipulation as to what range appears in the cradle.

Not exactly - this way it would be a theme developed over time and under greater influence of the players. That makes an appreciable difference.

If in creating their nations, players gave them a vague label and said that their nation was similar in its roots to X (East Asian, Mediterranean, Sub Saharan Africa, Northern European, Ancient Middle Eastern, Steppe, North American, Mesoamerican, South American, South Asian, other). Nations that do not fit would called "other" and either grouped together or spread amonst the named groups. I would place the nations in appropriate cradles.

I kind of disagree; originality would be prefferable inasmuch as it fits in. Also, remember that one of the best points of the Fresh Start is that civilisations develop over time. Furthermore, they influence each other's development. So I don't think there is any point to putting similar civilisations close together; rather, they should be groupped by geographical convenience/appropriateness on a premade but unrevealed map.

That's one idea, anyway

(most notably, the Romans),

And then on later stages, I would recall.

Of course, players could also ignore this for reasons like the scramble for Africa; manpower and prestige

With according long-term consequences for Third Republic-style colonialism (I believe Disenfrancised did a rant on that one a while back).

 

[Birdjaguar]

There should be something of a distance and supply factor. Depending on how many routes there are, the total distance, and the terrain between, a price should be calculated so.

I am hoping that trade routes will develop naturally over time. I expect that there will be some sort of explorer mechanism to connect pockets of nations to one another. Once connections are made, then your domestic economy becomes a source of their trade and their domestic economy becomes a source of your trade.

Depends on what do you mean under that... An advanced start? A post-Dark Age start? Or simply Iron Age start?

Still, I personally think that given your system it would be best to start in a 2000 BC equivalent, both technologically and historically.

It is still undetermined ATM. The brink of the iron age is a good starting point though.

Note that people generally get used to high taxes (well, within reasonable limits ofcourse); it's actually the raising of the taxes that causes the most dissent. Remember - humans are extremelly complacent; all historical rebellions were ultimately caused by outside change.

I do believe that various complicated social processes - including rebellions - should be covered in more detail; sadly, I am not sure as to how exactly it should be done. Still, perhaps some sort of stability stat would help? Wars, natural disasters, reforms (in this case meaning drastic changes of policy), conflicted social change and so forth will naturally decrease social stability, making rebellions and radicalism in general all the more likely (but also untying the government's hands, I suppose; same reforms are far easier to pull off when you don't have much to lose in the terms of stability).

I like the idea of a "stability" stat. Currently I have a "confidence" stat to track the percent of people who support the current government and its practices. Obviously, a low number points to dissatisfaction and unrest. Stability though might have some subtle differences.

Much of the rebellion in in history was caused by famine (because of weather, war, mis mangement, flood etc) that was taken advantage of by outside forces poised to lead a change.


Not exactly - this way it would be a theme developed over time and under greater influence of the players. That makes an appreciable difference.

I kind of disagree; originality would be prefferable inasmuch as it fits in. Also, remember that one of the best points of the Fresh Start is that civilisations develop over time. Furthermore, they influence each other's development. So I don't think there is any point to putting similar civilisations close together; rather, they should be groupped by geographical convenience/appropriateness on a premade but unrevealed map.

That's one idea, anyway

Soon, I will post a list of some of the new concepts I hope to incorporate into the game and then later a first pass at the stat list.

 

[Birdjaguar]

BirdNES 2: The Forge of Empires​

(working title)​

Concepts for discussion

Cradles:
I expect to have two to three cradles depending upon how many players join. One of the benefits of an alternate world to earth is that the map is unknown and is slowly exposed over time. Multiple cradles works against this sense of mystery because players can see maps of the other cradles and keep their eye on the doings there and the progress made in exploring. The first contact between cradles can be planned for and much of what in RL would be unknown, is known to players in both places. I have a solution for this foreknowledge.

Thunderfall has said he would open private (pass worded) sub fora within the NES forum; there would be one for each cradle in the game. Maps and updates would posted in those pass worded sub fora and not viewable to players (and lurkers) not playing in that cradle. The events of Cradle A would only be known by players in that cradle and the same for Cradle B etc. Diplo and announcements would take place in a public thread in the regular NES forum. Once two cradles make contact, those players who have discovered the new lands would get the new passwords. At some point the maps and threads would be joined. As part of this separation each cradle would make progress on its own tech tree so they could be at different stages when contact is made.

Now I know that this does present some issues of which “cheating” is one. Immature players and those desperate to win at any cost will find a way to get passwords into the other fora so they can see what is going on. Unfortunately that’s life.

My question to you all is, “Do you think that the extra effort required for this set up and to participate in such a game would be worth it in the playing?

Projects:
Projects seem to play a significant part of most “ancient” age games, but contrary to RL nations know in advance what the payoff of a project will be. In fact players usually choose the benefits ahead of time. I think that the payoff should be unknown until it is finished. I propose that players will launch a project of their own description and what they are investing in it. When it is finished, I will post the how it helps them.

Economies:
Each nation will have a domestic economy and each cradle and expanded cradle will have an economy and when all the cradles are connected, there will be a world economy. A nation’s domestic economy is the source of another nation’s trade. Larger economies will affect lesser ones. A war across one part of a cradle will affect all trading partners within that cradle and probably lower trade values for those connected to the cradle trade network. Players could build trading fleets as a way to increase trade.

Taxes:
Taxes on one’s domestic economy and tariffs on trade will be the source of spending. Rates are set by players and the efficiency of one’s tax system will improve or reduce how much is collected each turn. Players will still build things to improve their domestic economy and trade, but revenue will be based on taxes and tariffs. The size of one’s domestic economy and trade will determine how many TCs and ECs a nation has, and if they are captured or destroyed, then the nation’s tax base will be eroded.

 

[JosefStalinator]

My take:

On sub-fora, normally I am very against opening multiple threads for one NES (like the ridiculously ineffective councils and crap), but this definitely has potential. If secrecy can be maintained (I know I will do my part to keep my cradle secret) it should provide for an interesting meeting of the different worlds. Especially if one has advanced further than the other, in which case we'll have quite the unique experience.

For projects, players usually decide what they do based on what the project is. When I build pyramids, I don't expect my military to magically increase. Players will roughly know what the outcome is based on what they are building.

This world economy/domestic economy thing sounds somewhat questionable, even if it means a stat-based modifier to impact local economies during times of war and such. Honestly, if you can just keep track of that sorta thing as mod (-1 trade to trading nations, -2 to warring nations or something), it sounds somewhat superflous.

On taxes, you seem to not be able to shake the industrial perspective . Tariffs aren't an issue in the ancient world, and, as Das said, taxation only becomes an issue when its excessive. As for having a tax base stat (population based I guess? maybe productivity (agriculture) too?) and a trade stat, that sounds good, but variable tax rates in ancient times seems sort of unnecessary.

 

[North King]

I wholeheartedly support your project idea. Looks good for the rest of it as well.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thank you.

My take:

On sub-fora, normally I am very against opening multiple threads for one NES (like the ridiculously ineffective councils and crap), but this definitely has potential. If secrecy can be maintained (I know I will do my part to keep my cradle secret) it should provide for an interesting meeting of the different worlds. Especially if one has advanced further than the other, in which case we'll have quite the unique experience.

Yes and three cradles could add even more surprises.

For projects, players usually decide what they do based on what the project is. When I build pyramids, I don't expect my military to magically increase. Players will roughly know what the outcome is based on what they are building.

The ideas is not to have weird inappropriate stuff stem from a project, but to make the project building a more uncertain thing that is not controlled by the player just to suit their needs.

This world economy/domestic economy thing sounds somewhat questionable, even if it means a stat-based modifier to impact local economies during times of war and such. Honestly, if you can just keep track of that sorta thing as mod (-1 trade to trading nations, -2 to warring nations or something), it sounds somewhat superflous.

This trade system had a test run in BirdNES and actually worked quite well. Its purpose is to separate a nation's lcoal (domestic) economy from the wider economies of surrounding nations. Players then get to separate their efforts and choose which (or both) to spend money on. A an empire grows, its domestic economy has growth potential with less chance of interuptions by neighbors. Certainly your suggested -1 or -2 is a far simpler system that would probably work just fine. Unfortunately, my affliction makes me create very complex systems to encompass lots of detail and then work to smplify it to merely "complicated".

On taxes, you seem to not be able to shake the industrial perspective . Tariffs aren't an issue in the ancient world, and, as Das said, taxation only becomes an issue when its excessive. As for having a tax base stat (population based I guess? maybe productivity (agriculture) too?) and a trade stat, that sounds good, but variable tax rates in ancient times seems sort of unnecessary.

Taxes have always been an issue for civilizations ever since the Mesopotamians first organized their cities. Taxation accounting was the reason people invented writing in 3200 BC. I agree that changing tax rates is the trigger for unrest and not the fact of taxation, but that is not my purpose. Using taxes wil allow the game to move forward in time outside of the ancient age for one, and two it helps keep control of runaway economies. I have seen NESes (including my own) where nations earn too much money and mods have to reset spending or costs to bring things back in line. Tax rates also offer a bit more detail to managing your nation and comparing it to other nations.

One solution is to have all spending go into a "black box" with unknown results (see das' current AFSNES) and players cannot directly connect spending to spending X to get Y changes in trade or base economy. There may be a system behind it all, but that system is closed to the players. "Here are the new stats; I hope you like them." That has been standard in many games here. I have tried to create a system that is open so players can know the effects of their spending across a wide variety of stats before they spend it. What a mod does in his head, though, is very difficult to recreate in Excel. I have thought about scrapping all the effort and going to a "black box" system just because it would be so simple.

 

[JosefStalinator]

If you are up to the task for all these complex systems, more power to you, but I suppose my pessimistic view and experience tends to make me urge mods to err on the side of simplicity.

You probably have a better understanding of what you're talking about, and sample stats might clear things up a bit.

I still have to disagree on taxes though. Inflation is a natural product of an NES; as it progresses in time, powerful and advanced nations have relatively more spending power than the small and backwards. How are you supposed to accurately represent this, if you are constantly curbing spending ability?

EDIT: I do also like the black box idea, if only because it keeps people from exploiting the stats and whining about them .

 

[Birdjaguar]

If you are up to the task for all these complex systems, more power to you, but I suppose my pessimistic view and experience tends to make me urge mods to err on the side of simplicity.

You probably have a better understanding of what you're talking about, and sample stats might clear things up a bit.

I still have to disagree on taxes though. Inflation is a natural product of an NES; as it progresses in time, powerful and advanced nations have relatively more spending power than the small and backwards. How are you supposed to accurately represent this, if you are constantly curbing spending ability?

EDIT: I do also like the black box idea, if only because it keeps people from exploiting the stats and whining about them .

I plan on posting a list of stats and their explanation once I get closer to a beta set of them.

Growth in spending is natural and should occur, but players can and do figure ways to exploit loopholes and grow their nation beyond what makes sense for the game. Smart players and weak rules are a bad combination. A black box system solves this because the mod just keeps everything controlled and unexplained. I hope to build in cost increases as empires grow and include a variety of ways to tweak stats automatically so growth does not get out of hand. BirdNES taught me alot about how players like Abaddon and Perfectionist think and the ways rules break down over time. I'm trying to fix all those.

Now I could turn my complicated rules into a black box system that only showed the outcome of player spending and no details on why or how that came about. Stats might show an improvement in infrastructure, more trade and an extra EP to spend. The player would not know which, if either, produced the extra EP and maybe players don't care. I opened this thread to find out such things.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Hmm, I like the sound of this, though opening up three subforums for 1 NES sounds a bit ridiculous. I'd like to think that we could work on the honour system, but I imagine some people would have difficulty with that. And you never know if someone could just slip information outside of the forums, rendering a lot of the security stuff pointless.

Anyway, this sounds good. Either economic system, blackbox or mathematical, sounds fine to me.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Hmm, I like the sound of this, though opening up three subforums for 1 NES sounds a bit ridiculous. I'd like to think that we could work on the honour system, but I imagine some people would have difficulty with that. And you never know if someone could just slip information outside of the forums, rendering a lot of the security stuff pointless.

Anyway, this sounds good. Either economic system, blackbox or mathematical, sounds fine to me.

Three sub fora does sound like a bit much, but it would reduce the temptation to cheat and hopefully create game tension and anticipation as things moved along. One big downside is that lurkers would be locked out of the maps and updates. Lurkers are valuble because as players drop out, they often become new players who have been following along and get interested in joining. Recruiting new players will be more difficult.

I have already accepted that some players will find ways to gain access to the cradles wher they are not supposed to be. C'est la vie.

 

[The Strategos]

My question to you all is, “Do you think that the extra effort required for this set up and to participate in such a game would be worth it in the playing?

No.

Taxes on one’s domestic economy and tariffs on trade will be the source of spending. Rates are set by players and the efficiency of one’s tax system will improve or reduce how much is collected each turn. Players will still build things to improve their domestic economy and trade, but revenue will be based on taxes and tariffs. The size of one’s domestic economy and trade will determine how many TCs and ECs a nation has, and if they are captured or destroyed, then the nation’s tax base will be eroded.

Tariffs didn't exist in the ancient era. Instead, they had fees to use ports, roads, etc. that was paid by both domestic and foreign traffic. Just wanted to correct terminology up front so that someone doesn't do diplo like "Nation A and B agree to lower tariffs on their goods" which won't happen until 17th c. if not later.

 

[~Darkening~]

If anything, I'd join a non-earth fresh start. My interest in fresh starts is dwindling incrediable, through I am interested in a few cultures that failed to make it off the ground (along with a new one). I might be a little behind in the debate, but I'd support that old map that Swiss used mentioned on page 2.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Tariffs didn't exist in the ancient era. Instead, they had fees to use ports, roads, etc. that was paid by both domestic and foreign traffic. Just wanted to correct terminology up front so that someone doesn't do diplo like "Nation A and B agree to lower tariffs on their goods" which won't happen until 17th c. if not later.

I know that, but was using "tariffs" merely to distinguish tax on trade from tax on domestic activity. I will change it back to "tax" in my rules. I can't slip anything past you guys.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If anything, I'd join a non-earth fresh start. My interest in fresh starts is dwindling incrediable, through I am interested in a few cultures that failed to make it off the ground (along with a new one). I might be a little behind in the debate, but I'd support that old map that Swiss used mentioned on page 2.

It is never too late to join. The map you are talking about, as nice as it is, was already used in two games. A new one is in the offing. Of course, a known map would defeat the purpose of hidden cradles.