Multipolarity II - Game Thread

[Tani Coyote]

Based on the way MP2 was, I can't really see much use for players as corporations. They may as well just be an NGO instead.

NGOs = Politics
Corporations = Money

That's my divider between the two. Well technically I'd call NGOs terrorists to avoid semantics but apparently that's impolite.

 

[Tyo]

Fix tech. Consistent tech caps, make air viable, make WMD's more practical, scary, and work as intended. Or ditch them.
Fix war. Superpowers can still arise just from annexing another country regardless of the nerfs. Sneak-attacks are over-powered and not cool at all.
Fix industry. I know nobody has complained about this, but I've noticed something for a while now. There is no way for an economy to downgrade. Fall behind everyone else's? sure. But there will be no situations where we'd get a country like Greece in this game. At least not without being ravaged by war. Natural downgrade, not falling behind everyone else, should exist for nations that are ill-managed.

/2cents

@NGO-Corporation thing:
Merge them. Their focus would be completely dependent on the player motives, but it'd be healthier for the game to make all non-government parties to fit under one main category, all playing by the same rules.

Also I for one am fond of that inequal start you mused in that other thread.

 

[Patriotic_Fool]

If we have an unequal start, dibs on the USSR, or if possible, Germany if we're going pre-1945

 

[Tyo]

unequal start=/=historical start.

I was thinking more like there are x Great Power slots, y Medium Power slots, and the rest get small power slots. First come first served on that thread.

 

[Patriotic_Fool]

Well that sucks balls. Tani always uploads the new threads while I'm sleeping or at school. The 2 new IOT's were ~12 hours late.

It's not very fair to get it first come first serve, if power slots are like that.

What about all the people who don't constantly watch the IOT chat or refresh the IOT forum? They'd get stuck with weak powers, and be more inclined to leave for greener pastures. All in all, it'd be composed of mostly chatgoers and the like, and that wouldn't be fun.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Since there will be no sub-GM next game (dear god, there were too many issues with the idea this one, I am not touching it EVER again), economics closer to MP1's will likely re-arise, with currency-based recessions, depressions and the like.

I'll probably just abolish tech caps altogether and keep balance with regular stimuli.

The way to prevent warmongers from gaining any prominence is to downplay the advantage settled areas have over non. In addition, I'm going to deploy more and more hedgehogs to war zones. Making them less productive as well as more prone to rebellion.

Sneak attacks will probably remain possible, but only with a pretty darned good espionage agency.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

I was thinking more like there are x Great Power slots, y Medium Power slots, and the rest get small power slots. First come first served on that thread.

I propose they be parcelled out based on merit.

 

[Patriotic_Fool]

I don't think "merit" should be a factor. Everybody deserves an equal amount of fun, regardless of their experience or playstyle. That is why I stand behind the "get your own land" deal. If it was based on merit, no new players will play.

I truly hope you were joking, Thor.

 

[Sonereal]

I don't think "merit" should be a factor. Everybody deserves an equal amount of fun, regardless of their experience or playstyle. That is why I stand behind the "get your own land" deal. If it was based on merit, no new players will play.

I truly hope you were joking, Thor.

It wouldn't be the first IOT to give out nations based on merit. Shattered Europe gave out a handful of core nations based on merit, and most NES give out nations based on merit. It means new players have to play as a sensible nation and not "lololoimnapoleon"

 

[Osmowstroyer]

Merits? PUBAD send nukes to Thorvald of Lym. For me, sending nukes are merits.

 

[Tyo]

And that would be why the merit system could work.

 

[NinjaCow64]

If you want to do a major power/minor power thing, LH's Cold War IOT was a good example of this. It was all determined by RNG, so there isn't much unfair about that.

But I, for one, believe that Clients do a good job of replicating inequality in MP.

 

[Tyo]

not really. Everyone can have the same amount of clients as everyone else. It's just that most of you chose not to.

 

[Patriotic_Fool]

RNG ain't bad.

 

[Mosher]

I don't think "merit" should be a factor. Everybody deserves an equal amount of fun, regardless of their experience or playstyle. That is why I stand behind the "get your own land" deal. If it was based on merit, no new players will play.

I truly hope you were joking, Thor.

Just because you get a "better" nation does not mean you will have more or less fun. In Valkyrie, I am freaking 1923 Venezuela and I had the time of my life.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Playing a weaker nation is more of a challenge!

See the Age of Imperialism scenario for Civ 3. Starting as a city-state is hard, but oh so satisfying.

I'll decide to go with equal or unequal starts at a later time. But first:

Should the UN be weaker or?

 

[Tyo]

The UN should be completely ran by the players. Hell, if the players decide the UN should be dissolved, it should be dissolved. I felt like the UN was just an NPC that we tell more or less what its foreign policy is like.

Actually, if the players don't want a UN, there shouldn't have to be a UN.

 

[Patriotic_Fool]

I don't really see the need for UN, players do everything anyway.

 

[topsecret]

If the players want a UN, let 'em form it. Less work for you, anyway...

 

[Double A]

But roughly half of us don't.