Game Preference Poll

[LittleBoots]

It couldn't be in the middle of Halidom.

 

[Thlayli]

@LB: Plot twist?

I'm not sure I like the sub-forums idea, particularly with passwords. It's not like someone can't just search the image database, or get another player to give them the imageshack/photobucket link to the cradle map.

All of the appropriate arguments have been made, except for this one: As long as the three cradle maps are cropped, separated, and their positions kept indistinct, would it be SO hard for players to play in character and act as if they hadn't been discovered yet?

 

[LittleBoots]

That would be glorious. Also, I've decided to start writing theological works for the Seraphists. Hope you don't mind I can make him an itinerant heretic if you don't like his ideas.

 

[Thlayli]

Go for it! I'll work on a backstory if you'd like; the Seraphism description had been delayed due to construction on the solar system.

/end OOC

 

[Birdjaguar]

That would be glorious. Also, I've decided to start writing theological works for the Seraphists. Hope you don't mind I can make him an itinerant heretic if you don't like his ideas.

There may be room for a "Popish" nation or missionary player.

 

[LittleBoots]

Well, it was some of the most fun I've ever had. While I don't want to become a character actor, religion has always been one of my favorite parts of NESing. Depending on what you do, I'll probably try to give you another challenge to overcome and simply start a religion with a wandering prophet.

Actually, if I have time and a good idea, that is precisely what I intend to do.

Continuing my vague transition back to something on topic, I think that you should do want you want with the threads and fora, but what will probably be easiest is just putting the maps in spoilers and if players wanna look, they will. If they don't, they won't.

A more interesting question in my opinion is how you are going to handle vague homogeneity in cradles.

 

[jeps]

I do know that much. I am saying that in PureNES you show the whole world map at all times, just blacked out.

Suppose you have these three cradles.

On one map, you only show

in another thread, you show

.

They can figure out where the other cradles are, unless you a) centre all the cradles maps, b) only show the cradle and the immediate blacked out are, or c) use the sub-forums.

 

[Birdjaguar]

A more interesting question in my opinion is how you are going to handle vague homogeneity in cradles.

I don't know yet. One approach is to assign cradles after players post their nation and cultural background and use those to try and match nations together.

Another would be to Assign vague and general characteristics to cradle and let players design nations to "fit" them. A cradle mythology could be written and players would have to find a way to trace their nation's story back to that mythology. Three mythologies might produce three different sets of culturally close nations.

I am sure that there are other ways too.

 

[alex994]

I'm afraid you're mistaken j_eps, that map we see in Epoch is NOT the whole world map. It's just a large portion or segment of it. According to the finest scientists in that world, that world is at least 4x larger than earth

 

[LittleBoots]

I don't know yet. One approach is to assign cradles after players post their nation and cultural background and use those to try and match nations together.

This is an idea, although one possible drawback is that players might think the mod is misinterpreting them. Don't get me wrong though, no system is perfect and I kind of like this idea. The only other problem I see immediately is such a plethora of cultures that they can't be properly grouped. I mean, I'm sure there will be standard knockoffs (especially of egyptians, greeks and romans), but we are a rather creative group.

Another would be to Assign vague and general characteristics to cradle and let players design nations to "fit" them. A cradle mythology could be written and players would have to find a way to trace their nation's story back to that mythology. Three mythologies might produce three different sets of culturally close nations.

This allows for a bit of a compromise between letting players pick wherever, and assigning based on general ideas. If you do say "this cradle will play host to a more desert oriented peoples with darker skin whose ancient pagan gods demanded the blood of three legged cats" players can extrapolate all kinds of peoples from that without being too constrained. In fact, giving people some basic raw material to work with might help the creatively challenged to avoid simple knockoffs. This would also create a (in my opinion really cool) side history of linguistics (with languages derived from the same general parent language of the cradle), especially as they relate to culture and religion. But thats just me.

One last little note on that... and I won't press it too hard because this might infringe too much on a very touchy artistic base, but if the names used in similar cradles were at least similarly constructed in even the vaguest of senses, I think it would add a lot to the game. Then again, that might be too much and not appealing to most people. Its not that important to me, just something I've thought about.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is an idea, although one possible drawback is that players might think the mod is misinterpreting them. Don't get me wrong though, no system is perfect and I kind of like this idea. The only other problem I see immediately is such a plethora of cultures that they can't be properly grouped. I mean, I'm sure there will be standard knockoffs (especially of egyptians, greeks and romans), but we are a rather creative group.



This allows for a bit of a compromise between letting players pick wherever, and assigning based on general ideas. If you do say "this cradle will play host to a more desert oriented peoples with darker skin whose ancient pagan gods demanded the blood of three legged cats" players can extrapolate all kinds of peoples from that without being too constrained. In fact, giving people some basic raw material to work with might help the creatively challenged to avoid simple knockoffs. This would also create a (in my opinion really cool) side history of linguistics (with languages derived from the same general parent language of the cradle), especially as they relate to culture and religion. But thats just me.

One last little note on that... and I won't press it too hard because this might infringe too much on a very touchy artistic base, but if the names used in similar cradles were at least similarly constructed in even the vaguest of senses, I think it would add a lot to the game. Then again, that might be too much and not appealing to most people. Its not that important to me, just something I've thought about.

Great thoughts. And I agree with the last bit about language. Maybe once a cradle group is determined, the players could agree on a language convention.

Hmmm...What if players choose a cradle group to be in (based on a vague geographic description) and then they decided on a mythological base and language convention before they developed their nations?

 

[LittleBoots]

As pre-game prep? That would be cool, so long as players agreed to work together at least a little bit. Of course, with no false flattery, I think that if you mod it, they will come. Even if working together is a daunting task, I think that for a proven mod with innovative ideas, people will do what they can.

Structure is always good for these sorts of things. Given that I can't think of a precedent, we could come up with something and see how it works. What if you took your vague geographic description and then made a template (similar to nation templates) for each cradle that must be filled out and agreed upon by every player in that cradle. If a player simply cannot agree, then he can either be reassigned to another cradle or else have his nation start as a barbarian nation somewhere down the line. Thats harsh, but given multiple options and a low-intensity task, it shouldn't be a problem.

As for the template itself... I suppose it would have some basic language convention (and if they can't think of anything linguistic, they can at least agree that "our names are going to have lots of a 'hard sounds' because we're manly men (thus - Khazakriat, Tavukika, Darubat)" or say "our names will have -isyot as a suffix for place (thus - Khazakisyot, Turkmenisyot, Afghanisyot)" or something like that. It could also be more complicated, but just a general understanding would be nice. Given that creating languages is no small feat, it could be as simple as "we are going to sound vaguely celto-nordic (thus Varik ap Haelstyddno, Tir Tairngire, Elgwynisjik)"

As for mythology, even a basic agreement on polytheism v. monotheism v. dualism v. an aspect religion v. veneratio atavorum v. whatever basic concept for a religious system will exist a stem for the rest of the cradle to build from. Most people start out with a basic polytheism anyway. And if one wants to deviate from that, they must at least acknowledge the existence and influence of the mainstays, and recognize that they will likely be persecuted because they are different.

Just throwing ideas out as they come (instead of writing essays or reading like I should be doing )

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Iggy likes what he hears.

EDIT: And remains opposed to multiple subforums.

 

[JosefStalinator]

I suggest you just always put the three update parts in spoilers, and go off the honor system. I know its not foolproof, but I'll at least do my part, for what it's worth.

I have to disagree on the concept of a common pantheon for the cradles, but agree on the similar language (like OTL Indo-European). Ancient polytheism was so vague and non-standard that its pretty unrealistic to try to unify them under any specific framework.


EDIT: And there should definitely NOT be any further advance beyond polytheism as a standard for all nations in a cradle.

And I lobby for celtic names .

 

[das]

Would using private fora for the cradles improve the player experience and make for a better game?

Well, again, no.

About tech trees - I really think that even if yo uare going to implement that, it should be kept secret. I really hate it when people start organised research and whatnot. Ancient nations never focused on developing any technological field or whatever; developments happened despite and beside the will of rulers far more often than not, leaving them and the population to merely take advantage of what new advancements happen. The most rulers could do in the terms of guided research is actively catch up with the other realms by inviting specialists, and ofcourse implement various advances.

The tech trees are a travesty inasmuch as they encourage counter-realistic behaviour. However, it may be well for you to use them as reference guides for yourself only and to drop various technological devleopments on the heads of players every now and then. Actually, that would be pretty great if we are going for realistic representation here.

About cultural development - I think that this stuff should be worked out after the first few updates (during which the first cultures will take shape, enter contact and rub off each other, giving us something to work with) and on a consensual basis. Maybe a system of such pauses for "reality consolidation" (plus awards and maybe a brief break for the moderator), to properly work out the cultural influences?

One problem is that it will demand a lot of commitment and, dare I even say, matury from the players. Actually, that would also help ease the moderator's burden, inasmuch as he could weed out those unable to play up to the standard.

That said, linguistic similarities in cradles would be good. However, we shouldn't overdo homogenity neither; there should be some space for fringe (though influenced) cultures of other peoples on the cradle's periphery (see Hittites, Persians and Egyptians in the Ancient Middle East).

Ancient polytheism was so vague and non-standard that its pretty unrealistic to try to unify them under any specific framework.

Except that the Indo-European pantheons were all pretty similar, all things considered (Indra existed under a very similar name and in pretty much the same role in the Mitanni pantheon, for instance); Far Eastern mythology had lots of common elements, too; and the ancient Semitic deities were pretty much the same.

Common themes in related peoples seem pretty much inevitable, to sum up. Establishing ethnic and linguistic relations will be somewhat difficult, but perhaps a volunteer could step up for the task.

 

[LittleBoots]

About cultural development - I think that this stuff should be worked out after the first few updates (during which the first cultures will take shape, enter contact and rub off each other, giving us something to work with) and on a consensual basis. Maybe a system of such pauses for "reality consolidation" (plus awards and maybe a brief break for the moderator), to properly work out the cultural influences?

My main problem with this system is that it allows each to develop from a vacuum. No culture developed without interaction from the very beginning and so, if anything, the entire basic culture should be the same from the beginning, a point from which individual cultures will immediately begin evolving. Admittedly, they could be a little culturally empty before gameplay begins and so I would understand wanting to wait until they are developed before trying to do too much with them, but this itself is a problem. If a player has an idea of where he wants to go with them that doesn't mesh with the theme, there will be a problem. These things could be sorted out by a mature interaction between mod and player, but I'm assuming A) the worst and, B) that this is not the best outcome (the compromise after the fact). In my opinion, its better to demand a degree of conformity from the beginning and allow creative expansion from a definite starting point than trying to mix a few developed cultures and backwards apply a common beginning culture.

One problem is that it will demand a lot of commitment and, dare I even say, matury from the players. Actually, that would also help ease the moderator's burden, inasmuch as he could weed out those unable to play up to the standard.

Absolutely, no matter what is eventually done, this kind of play demands more than casual (and I daresay selfish) play.

That said, linguistic similarities in cradles would be good. However, we shouldn't overdo homogenity neither; there should be some space for fringe (though influenced) cultures of other peoples on the cradle's periphery (see Hittites, Persians and Egyptians in the Ancient Middle East).

Again, agreed. We want realism. While the Hebrew, Phoenician, and Greek alphabets all contain similar letters and ideas (to some extent) they are by no means the same. Similarly, while Greek and Egyptian culture were very closely related (including their religious beliefs, more on that later), their writing systems were not (post Linear B). I simply mean that we shouldn't have words like Jarankoff next to Butao if it can be avoided. I think we can all appreciate the similarities between languages derived from similar origins without demanding too much homogenity. We do want creativity after all.

Except that the Indo-European pantheons were all pretty similar, all things considered (Indra existed under a very similar name and in pretty much the same role in the Mitanni pantheon, for instance); Far Eastern mythology had lots of common elements, too; and the ancient Semitic deities were pretty much the same.

Lets look at one the reasons Romans were so successful in assimilation... their gods could be very easily applied to the gods of the pagans they conquered and so local myths and Roman myths could mesh. Pagan gods are pagan gods are pagan gods. All very fascinating, but very much similar in what they represent.

DISCLAIMER: I defy, on principle, those who will come back nitpicking about the differences among pagan gods I understand that there are variations. I know and appreciate many of these variations. Religions in general tend to represent the same things; polytheistic religions even moreso because they are more versatile and accepting of foreign gods.

Common themes in related peoples seem pretty much inevitable, to sum up. Establishing ethnic and linguistic relations will be somewhat difficult, but perhaps a volunteer could step up for the task.

I would personally volunteer to help out with whichever cradle I end up in, but obviously people have to agree on these things and be held to those agreements. What exactly are you wanting this volunteer to do?

And there should definitely NOT be any further advance beyond polytheism as a standard for all nations in a cradle.

This is something I wanted to address as a possibility for moderate deviation from the norm. I agree that polytheism should be the general standard, but if one nation wants to start off from their beginnings as a monotheist, I would not have a problem with that so long as 1) they take into account the influence and impact of the other religions around them, 2) they accept that they will most likely be persecuted for being different, 3) they are not radically deviating from the general culture of the cradle, and 4) this does not become a widespread trend that disrupts the general unity (i.e., this is only for a handful, at most, beginning cultures).

Exceptions to be made at the Mod's discretion and whim (which we can trust Bird with).

Also the polytheistic basis for a cradle does not have to be stereotypical of indo-european gods or even very advanced. It good simply be belief in supernatural forces with an emphasis on certain terrifying forces (like lightning and feminine anger). Something that differentiates the cradle from the others and loosely ties the civilizations arising there together.

 

[das]

Again, agreed. We want realism. While the Hebrew, Phoenician, and Greek alphabets all contain similar letters and ideas (to some extent) they are by no means the same. Similarly, while Greek and Egyptian culture were very closely related (including their religious beliefs, more on that later), their writing systems were not (post Linear B). I simply mean that we shouldn't have words like Jarankoff next to Butao if it can be avoided. I think we can all appreciate the similarities between languages derived from similar origins without demanding too much homogenity. We do want creativity after all.

I suppose what I mean is that there should be more than just one basic group in a cradle, i.e. Egypt should be allowed in the Fertile Crescent despite deviating considerably from the more homogenic Mesopotamian-Levantine theme.

Anyway, good points all.

 

[Symphony D.]

The opportunity is there. It is our/my choice to partake of that opportunity or not.

Then he is giving you preferential treatment due to your closer relationship with him. It is his site, and his prerogative--I cannot argue or predict what he chooses to do. I do not care unless it impacts me in some way. In this instance, it does. It remains a dangerous precedent to set for all the aforestated reasons regardless of its value to gameplay.

You might find the potential destruction of this forum irrelevent, particularly if the path required for that to occur is disapproved of by the bulk of those whom you are soliciting. But I consider it an infinitely higher priority that such be avoided than it occur for a single game or for many games, whatever benefits it may confer upon that singular game or multiple games, and as such I view those play benefits it might give that/those game/s utterly irrelevent.

From that perspective, no matter what benefits it confers unto you or anyone else, it should--must--be avoided. We are at cross-purposes here. That most people do not want it anyway is secondary to this (my) perspective, though beneficial to it. I maintain it must be avoided at all costs simply because it is sowing seeds of ruin.

If that isn't enough of an argument for you, then hopefully those other justifications are, as they appear to be. My point is and remains it is an extremely dangerous path to consider regardless of how it may benefit a game simply because of what it is, no matter how it might be implemented, and nothing in that counterargument refutes that point.

Technology wouldn't necessarily follow earth's path in our upcoming world, but it will follow a similar path if the inhabitants are human. [...]

Undoubtedly. However, again, unless your tech tree is of only the vaguest design, those particulars will vary massively, and if a tech tree is that exceedingly vague, it is mostly useless, as it doesn't actually describe anything that can't be described in some simpler fashion.

A tech tree's purpose is to organize advances through time so that things can't happen out of a logical order.

Until fairly recently most technology is fairly illogical in the path of its development. You can get gunpowder without steel or the wheel by simple accident of mixing chemicals. You can almost skip bronze entirely and go straight to iron. Most of the technology developed over most of humanity's time period is only related in the vaguest sense to the things that came before it, because it was simple exploration and derivation of nature. Conforming that on a vast time-scale on a tree requires being exceptionally vague, as noted above, or imposing an artificial limitation on players for the sake of limiting them.

The latter appears to be your intention, and you can do that freely, but it remains a totally artificial and imposed structure with no semblance of reality beyond the language of it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

BTW, the fact that I disagree with much of what you have posted will not in any way influence my upcoming decision about whether or not to use sub fora. That decision will be made on the basis of whether or not players here think it is a good idea. In disagreeing with you, I am not trying to support a case for using those fora.

Then he is giving you preferential treatment due to your closer relationship with him. It is his site, and his prerogative--I cannot argue or predict what he chooses to do. I do not care unless it impacts me in some way. In this instance, it does. It remains a dangerous precedent to set for all the aforestated reasons regardless of its value to gameplay.

You make two incorrect ussumptions: first you assume that I have some special relationship with TF that is "different" than that of other people here. Lots of people pm TF with questions. You can do that too. You can even complain to him about his decision to allow private subforums, or start a thread in SF about it. Second, his treatment of me can only be "preferential" if he has already denied the same opportunity to others for an equally meritorious project or if he plans to deny such permission in the future. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever asked the question before so this was the first time that he answered it.

You might find the potential destruction of this forum irrelevent, particularly if the path required for that to occur is disapproved of by the bulk of those whom you are soliciting. But I consider it an infinitely higher priority that such be avoided than it occur for a single game or for many games, whatever benefits it may confer upon that singular game or multiple games, and as such I view those play benefits it might give that/those game/s utterly irrelevent.

I think you are over reacting. There is nothing that I can do to destroy this forum or the activity of NESing. This forum will only go away when the players stop having fun and let rancor and peevishness take over.

NESing is not a zero sum game. A fun and successful game does not diminish all the other games going on. A failed game does not add to the fun of other games. Players seem to ignore games that they don't like and contribute mightily to those they do. Success here is providing/contributing the most amount of varied and fun experiences that people want to play. If all the players here "wet their pants in excited anticipation" of a game using private sub fora, then that would add to the fun and the long term stability of the forum. If I start such a NES and two people join, then it is a failed game that will be ignored and it willnot take away from anything. Structural changes succeed or fail based on how much fun they are participate in.

From that perspective, no matter what benefits it confers unto you or anyone else, it should--must--be avoided. We are at cross-purposes here. That most people do not want it anyway is secondary to this (my) perspective, though beneficial to it. I maintain it must be avoided at all costs simply because it is sowing seeds of ruin.

If that isn't enough of an argument for you, then hopefully those other justifications are, as they appear to be. My point is and remains it is an extremely dangerous path to consider regardless of how it may benefit a game simply because of what it is, no matter how it might be implemented, and nothing in that counterargument refutes that point.

They said the same thing about personal computers on 1980.

Undoubtedly. However, again, unless your tech tree is of only the vaguest design, those particulars will vary massively, and if a tech tree is that exceedingly vague, it is mostly useless, as it doesn't actually describe anything that can't be described in some simpler fashion.

Until fairly recently most technology is fairly illogical in the path of its development. You can get gunpowder without steel or the wheel by simple accident of mixing chemicals. You can almost skip bronze entirely and go straight to iron. Most of the technology developed over most of humanity's time period is only related in the vaguest sense to the things that came before it, because it was simple exploration and derivation of nature. Conforming that on a vast time-scale on a tree requires being exceptionally vague, as noted above, or imposing an artificial limitation on players for the sake of limiting them.

The latter appears to be your intention, and you can do that freely, but it remains a totally artificial and imposed structure with no semblance of reality beyond the language of it.

My intention has been to post a variety of concepts and ideas about this NES and to gather feedback from any who care to contribute. My goal is to run a game that is fun for all those who choose to join. You guys have lots of opinions and many good ideas. I hope to include those good ideas into the game. The pieces that are falling into place will make a very different game than I expected when I started this project.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Would you rather have army stats that separate out mounted troops from Infantry, Levies and UUS or just have army stats for standing army, levies and UUs. In the latter case, players would have to designate their army make up (how many infantry and mounted troops) each turn.