Game Preference Poll

[alex994]

We're people who for the most part have no lives and spend every waking hour not sleeping, eating, at school, or at compulsory club meetings/lemonade making in front of the computer. What did you expect

Personally speaking, I'm not exactly very receptive to having three "secret" sub-forums so to speak; I'm fanatically curious and I will want to know what happens elsewhere!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Personally speaking, I'm not exactly very receptive to having three "secret" sub-forums so to speak; I'm fanatically curious and I will want to know what happens elsewhere!

Why do you think I worked so hard to convince TF that it was a good idea?

 

[~Darkening~]

Meanwhile, in BirdNES France had no problems sending nearly 200,000 men across the Rhine and seizing enormous amounts of territory.

While I'm not defending the system, you have some facts wrong. First off, France never field an army larger than 120k at any time- there are actual reserves to replace men killed off/deserted. Secondly, the French armies that actually progressed into the Palatine were smaller than this- I think I fielded 90k men that last turn. Most of the time, I did have a total larger than 100k, through they were never grouped togethor in one specific field (I think I might have had a totaled 120k in the Palatine that first turn). In addition, I always reserved a point to ease the stress of the army, and once Frederick was installed (that last turn), I did ask for some of the expenses to be handled (not sure if this happened or not.) In general, my armies were pretty much limited to the region neighboring the border- at the climax of the war, in that last turn, I had launched an assault with only 90,000- nowhere near 200,000.

The problem with Spain was its players. You can't blame it on the rules if it was consistantly abadoned, left to completely new players, and then taken advantage of. As for "amounts of territory"- are you kidding me??? If I'm correct, you were Ethopia- not only taking Egypt, but also much of the general region of Palestine. Ignoring that it would be just as hard (if not harder) for Ethopia to cross these distances, you actually can lay allegations of crossing the Rhine and enforing my ally? You do realize that I 'controlled' the Palatine the same way Genoa controled Naples- the area is generally ruled by a minor (in my case Frederick).

Sorry Bird. As I said before, I just began to attempt to catch up (and discovered the sub fora option). I'll join one of the three.

 

[Perfectionist]

While I'm not defending the system, you have some facts wrong. First off, France never field an army larger than 120k at any time

I thought I remembered 60 Divisions being mentioned at some point, but perhaps I was mistaken.

As for "amounts of territory"- are you kidding me??? If I'm correct, you were Ethiopia- not only taking Egypt, but also much of the general region of Palestine.Ignoring that it would be just as hard (if not harder) for Ethiopia to cross these distances

Distance has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, which is that Europe of the time, particularly in the border areas such as the Rhineland, was massively fortified. A decently fortified and garrisoned city in the late sixteenth century took tens of thousands of men and months, if not years, to reduce. That level of fortification did not exist in the Middle East.

 

[Swissempire]

I love the Sub Forums idea. Though if we did that, i'd want fast updates, so we could progress and eventually meet quicker. Cause if you get 21 players, you'd only have to do 3 mini-updates of 7-10 countries each, counting NPCs.

I really like the project idea.

For Economy, what about having a base stat just called "income". This would represent money made from resources, exports, taxes. You could try any number of creative ways to increase it. Plus, if we're doing 100 year updates, it seem smarter. Also, have the Treasury play a larger role, since the built up wealth of a nation had more to do with its success than its yearly tribute culling.

The Tech tree should be generalized, to allow for more innovation. Like discovering "Iron-Forging" not "the ability to forge Iron Swords". Also, the tech tree should to be too structured. If i go in one direction, I should be able to get advances without having all the usually prereqs since i'm more advanced and my knowledge in one area would help make a different solution and view in another area. This might not make sense, since i'm tired right now though.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I love the Sub Forums idea. Though if we did that, i'd want fast updates, so we could progress and eventually meet quicker. Cause if you get 21 players, you'd only have to do 3 mini-updates of 7-10 countries each, counting NPCs.

Oh only three mini updates! How hard can that be.

In fact, three smaller updates might actually be faster than one big one.

I really like the project idea.

For Economy, what about having a base stat just called "income". This would represent money made from resources, exports, taxes. You could try any number of creative ways to increase it. Plus, if we're doing 100 year updates, it seem smarter. Also, have the Treasury play a larger role, since the built up wealth of a nation had more to do with its success than its yearly tribute culling.

The Tech tree should be generalized, to allow for more innovation. Like discovering "Iron-Forging" not "the ability to forge Iron Swords". Also, the tech tree should to be too structured. If i go in one direction, I should be able to get advances without having all the usually prereqs since i'm more advanced and my knowledge in one area would help make a different solution and view in another area. This might not make sense, since i'm tired right now though.

I am working on ways to keep the stats simpler for players. When I have something I will post it.

The tech tree as it stands now is very simple and has four separate paths:

Military Practices
Domestic Economy
Trade Economy
Religion & Culture

Each path is a straight line that approximates about 1000 years. Players would invest tech points each turn if they have any. The effects of tech advance will be varied. Military practices might affect army size, increase the maximum stat levels for leadership, improve weaponry, or the ability to raise levies. Domestic techs would lower costs for things or raise stat levels or provide access to new ways of growing the economy. I don't know about prerequisites yet, but have no plans right now to make it that complicated. I need to finish how stats will work before I can integrate how tech will affect them.

Tech points are auto calculated from other internal stats and they are how you advance. The tree will be secret and you won't know the results of advancing in an area until you spend the points. I may randomize things a bit so one player's level 3 military is not necessarily the same as another's, especially across cradles.

 

[Symphony D.]

Maps and updates would posted in those pass worded sub fora and not viewable to players (and lurkers) not playing in that cradle.

I don't think cheating is the big issue. I think it's more that prospective players won't know anything at all about what they'd be joining and as such most of them will have much trepidation about joining. I personally wouldn't join something if I couldn't see its progress, style, or character beforehand.

I also view the idea as an excessively intensive strain on resources, particularly as a game is an impermanent fixture upon the forum's landscape.

Each path is a straight line that approximates about 1000 years.

Bad juju for an alternate world scenario. Really bad.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't think cheating is the big issue. I think it's more that prospective players won't know anything at all about what they'd be joining and as such most of them will have much trepidation about joining. I personally wouldn't join something if I couldn't see its progress, style, or character beforehand.

I also view the idea as an excessively intensive strain on resources, particularly as a game is an impermanent fixture upon the forum's landscape.

Bad juju for an alternate world scenario. Really bad.

A strain on whose resources?

If the straight line tech tree is so bad, please offer an alternative. BTW, I see there being about 10 steps (advances) in the coverage and some auto diffusion to neighboring states over time.

 

[Symphony D.]

A strain on whose resources?

Thunderfall's. If you can do it, why shouldn't everyone else who wants to run the same sort of game, or is able to think up a new and novel use for the same concept of subforums be able to? And then we have a dozen or more locked up little sub-forums that eventually have to be "declassified" after they've served their use or shuffled off somewhere else or some other such nonsense.

It makes us put a rather large and unnecessary burden on the Moderation staff, because then everyone's going to want little passworded subforums for their own exclusive uses (alliances, whatever) and then they have to get them lest the Moderators be said to be giving you preferential treatment.

This in turn raises stress between them and us if we all get to do it because of constantly creating or dissolving such sub-forums, or between us alone as some of us get to have them and others don't. In either event it fractures and Balkanizes the forums by setting a precedent. Very bad road to travel down. If you're genuinely worried about cheating I imagine it'd be much easier to just ask for view logs of the particular threads like they do for SGOTM to ensure people aren't looking where they shouldn't be.

If the straight line tech tree is so bad, please offer an alternative. BTW, I see there being about 10 steps (advances) in the coverage and some auto diffusion to neighboring states over time.

It's an alternate world. Why would technology follow the same exact course of evolution it did on Earth? Or even necessarily the same order? By looking at different cultures it's rather easy to see by even an extremely simple comparison, such as China compared to Europe, that a single tree couldn't describe both of them at the same time to any degree of accuracy.

Tech trees only really work on fairly small time-scales with known developments, not vast sweeps of history, as technology is driven by the needs, capabilities, and prejudices of the societies working with it and their interactions with their neighbors. A tree cannot describe that in the long-term unless it's extremely vague (eg: Civ4 tech tree).

If you're doing a wide-angle sweep of history, particularly in an alternate world, the only way to really go is freeform major advances (eg: iron-working) and extrapolate more specific advances (say, Blitzkrieg) based on the sum of those major advances.

As a not terribly good example: The Zinsz people have Iron-Working, and have had Horse Domestication for quite awhile and as a result of this and being nomadic in nature, have developed the stirrup, enabling much better control of their horses. This, combined with their aggressive, raiding behavior against their neighbors and their survival by hunting upon the steppe means they have developed advanced Light Cavalry Doctrine.

You have technologies A, D, and N, and your cultures has traits, 1, 6, and 9, therefore you have products f, q, and x.

 

[LittleBoots]

Some thoughts:

I like the idea of separate threads for each cradle (I say threads after having read and agreed with Symph's post) where you have logs to know who's been looking at the threads. However, the simple fact is that those who can't restrain their curiosity (or want to be prepared, or whatever) will find a way to look at them without being penalized. I don't know how the viewing log works, but couldn't someone just log out and view the thread as a guest? All laws and rules rely on basic honesty because those who are determined to break the law can get away with it.

As for early themes, instead of backwards imposing a cultural unity, perhaps players grouped in the same cradle could discuss some vague cultural commonalities they would agree must somehow work into their nation? Yes, we want to allow people freedom, but I don't see how common culture is going to magically appear, given a group of players who have certain ideas about the core of their civilization they aren't going to change.

 

[das]

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.

Well, famine was a widespread cause, yes; there are few other things that stir an agrarian polity as much. However, (initially) spontaneous uprisings are usually the way it happened; peasant rebels don't waste time on organising much of anything, typically.

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?

Not at all.

It sounds like an immense waste of effort and fundamentally senseless. I mean, come on? What use could a player realistically make of information from a whole different cradle? The first contact/superior knowledge problem can be largely fixed by simply keeping the real position of the cradles vis-a-vis one another a secret prior to contact (like Iggy had done, for instance).

The rest seems great, but that one is just stupid - sorry for bluntness, ofcourse.

Oh, and I also strongly oppose the idea of a tech. tree. Largely for the reasons Symphony already pointed out, also because it seems largely redundant.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Personally speaking, I'm not exactly very receptive to having three "secret" sub-forums so to speak; I'm fanatically curious and I will want to know what happens elsewhere!

I agree with Alex.

 

[das]

Actually, add that to my argument list as well.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Some thoughts:

I like the idea of separate threads for each cradle (I say threads after having read and agreed with Symph's post) where you have logs to know who's been looking at the threads. However, the simple fact is that those who can't restrain their curiosity (or want to be prepared, or whatever) will find a way to look at them without being penalized. I don't know how the viewing log works, but couldn't someone just log out and view the thread as a guest? All laws and rules rely on basic honesty because those who are determined to break the law can get away with it.

As for early themes, instead of backwards imposing a cultural unity, perhaps players grouped in the same cradle could discuss some vague cultural commonalities they would agree must somehow work into their nation? Yes, we want to allow people freedom, but I don't see how common culture is going to magically appear, given a group of players who have certain ideas about the core of their civilization they aren't going to change.

I have to say that I agree with prettymuch everything that Little Caliga says here.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thunderfall's. If you can do it, why shouldn't everyone else who wants to run the same sort of game, or is able to think up a new and novel use for the same concept of subforums be able to? And then we have a dozen or more locked up little sub-forums that eventually have to be "declassified" after they've served their use or shuffled off somewhere else or some other such nonsense.

It makes us put a rather large and unnecessary burden on the Moderation staff, because then everyone's going to want little passworded subforums for their own exclusive uses (alliances, whatever) and then they have to get them lest the Moderators be said to be giving you preferential treatment.

This in turn raises stress between them and us if we all get to do it because of constantly creating or dissolving such sub-forums, or between us alone as some of us get to have them and others don't. In either event it fractures and Balkanizes the forums by setting a precedent. Very bad road to travel down. If you're genuinely worried about cheating I imagine it'd be much easier to just ask for view logs of the particular threads like they do for SGOTM to ensure people aren't looking where they shouldn't be.

Let me set aside the value (or not) of my idea for now. To begin TF is the one who authorizes and creates private subforums. He has approved this application for them if I want to proceed. Now perhaps you are correct and TF has not thought about forum resources or the possibility that other people will want them for other games or other purposes. Perhaps you are correct that TF doesn't understand the implications of his decisions or what additional efforts might be demanded of his moderators. Perhaps you are correct the TF will not be willing to say "No" to other requests and he will feel obligated to clutter the forum up with myriad subfora of dubious value.

Well, I give him more credit than you do and think you are wrong on all counts. TF is thoughtful and careful about changes to CFC. He has enough experience with posters to see past the immediate consequences and anticipate longer term implications. He is not afraid to say "No!" He is willing to give this a try if we are. The opportunity is there. It is our/my choice to partake of that opportunity or not.

And as shown by the posts, there is a very strong current against any such effort.

The whole subforum question is not about cheating. As I have said, the whole idea was to create mystery and suspense in a multi cradle game and reduce the temptation to spoil the surprise. The "cheating" is a by product of players wanting to know things in advance and not be surprised. From the beginning, I have said that I fully expect players to find a way to "cheat".

My question all along has been: "Would using private fora for the cradles improve the player experience and make for a better game?" To me none of the other issues raised really matter at this point. If private subfora won't enhance the play, then they are a waste. End of story. If they would, then it is time to look at the other implications and obstacles that would reduce getting the most out of the improved game.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's an alternate world. Why would technology follow the same exact course of evolution it did on Earth? Or even necessarily the same order? By looking at different cultures it's rather easy to see by even an extremely simple comparison, such as China compared to Europe, that a single tree couldn't describe both of them at the same time to any degree of accuracy.

Technology wouldn't necessarily follow earth's path in our upcoming world, but it will follow a similar path if the inhabitants are human. We are creatures of practicality and look to improve things more than we look to create thing sjust to create them. Stirrups will not be invented before riding, but how long it takes to invent them once riding is known is pretty much up for grabs. Iron is less likely to be used prior to copper because of its higher melting point, but once copper (and maybe bronze) working is known and forges are in use, then getting the higher temperatures necessary for iron working are more apt to happen. Again how long it takes to discover iron is a wild card. Could the stirrup come before iron working? Sure. Sophisticated trade will require some sort of record keeping. Does it have to be writing? No. But at some point inadequate record keeping becomes a constraint on trade and a new system is developed through necessity.

Tech trees only really work on fairly small time-scales with known developments, not vast sweeps of history, as technology is driven by the needs, capabilities, and prejudices of the societies working with it and their interactions with their neighbors. A tree cannot describe that in the long-term unless it's extremely vague (eg: Civ4 tech tree).

If you're doing a wide-angle sweep of history, particularly in an alternate world, the only way to really go is freeform major advances (eg: iron-working) and extrapolate more specific advances (say, Blitzkrieg) based on the sum of those major advances.

A tech tree's purpose is to organize advances through time so that things can't happen out of a logical order. They can be restrictive to make sure that things don't happen too fast or do happen in a specific order.

My plans are to identify key changes in game play that I want to happen. and tie those to tech advances. Within a cradle all advances will slowly diffuse and be learned by all the neighbors. Getting a tech first will have short and maybe long term benefits, but never exclusive ownership. I see many of the advances merely increasing the levels of stat development or opening new options for growing your nation rather than imparting a new skill or unit or weapon. Of course each cradle would have different tech trees, even if at the end they reached the same point.

The tech tree would also allow players to focus their development along one of the four lines if they wanted. One nation might choose to focus on trade items and get way ahead there. Another might choose the military track. Over time diffusion will even them out, but at any given moment each would have an advantage over the other.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

The problem with subfora is that it highly discourages new players from joining after the game starts. Rather than reading through the thread at their leisure, they have to make a specific decision to play--and if they ask you to PM them a password, they're automatically committed either to playing in the one cradle that they were given access too, or not playing at all, as knowledge of one cradle would, according to your argument, spoil the game.

So, that effectively means the number of players will always be decreasing, as old players leave and new ones (or ones from a different cradle) can't join. In addition, it means that random comments from lurkers, certainly a big part of NESing, will be discouraged. IMO, I'd trust in the ability of players to separate in-game and metagame thinking, and just create three (or two, or four) seperate threads that everyone has access too, similar to what NK and Thlayli did.

 

[jeps]

People themselves have said that they would look at the other threads. HOWEVER, if on the maps you simply cut them off, not a world map with only their area shown, but only their area and a small bit around them, expanded as necessary, it would not reveal any details, unlike in PureNES where there are certain areas only where the cradle can be.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The problem with subfora is that it highly discourages new players from joining after the game starts. Rather than reading through the thread at their leisure, they have to make a specific decision to play--and if they ask you to PM them a password, they're automatically committed either to playing in the one cradle that they were given access too, or not playing at all, as knowledge of one cradle would, according to your argument, spoil the game.

So, that effectively means the number of players will always be decreasing, as old players leave and new ones (or ones from a different cradle) can't join. In addition, it means that random comments from lurkers, certainly a big part of NESing, will be discouraged. IMO, I'd trust in the ability of players to separate in-game and metagame thinking, and just create three (or two, or four) seperate threads that everyone has access too, similar to what NK and Thlayli did.

That is a big downside and one I don't have a solution for yet.

People themselves have said that they would look at the other threads. HOWEVER, if on the maps you simply cut them off, not a world map with only their area shown, but only their area and a small bit around them, expanded as necessary, it would not reveal any details, unlike in PureNES where there are certain areas only where the cradle can be.

The plan would be to only show discovered areas in each cradle. The rest would be black.

 

[North King]

People themselves have said that they would look at the other threads. HOWEVER, if on the maps you simply cut them off, not a world map with only their area shown, but only their area and a small bit around them, expanded as necessary, it would not reveal any details, unlike in PureNES where there are certain areas only where the cradle can be.

Heh. You're assuming that the world map is a reasonable size.

It's not. The cradle could literally be anywhere.