Multipolarity II - Game Thread

[topsecret]

But roughly half of us don't.

Including me. So Sonic just shouldn't make one.

 

[Tani Coyote]

MP is about soft power. Which is, once more, power that involves not bashing eachother over the head. Gaining influence through international legislation and such is an excellent means of soft power.

Really, the biggest question is:

Does the UN retain control of the Panama and Suez canals?

 

[Patriotic_Fool]

Naw. I'm going to claim all the provinces that are canals in MP3, and my country shall be named "The UN".

 

[Tani Coyote]

Or more likely I'll just put NPCs there.

Have fun politicking over those, kids!

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

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.

Merit =/= seniority. I've seen outstanding new players, and so-called veterans who still don't grasp the spirit of the game. As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility; without self-restraint on the part of the players, immersion evaporates and IOTs quickly self-destruct.


On the subject of the UN, a pre-established charter is tolerable, if it's done right. As I've said countless times before, MP2's early dysfunction stemmed from a very poorly-drafted patchwork of arbitrary statutes; it would have been easier to revise the whole UN than patch the holes. If you're not willing to take the time and effort to lay down a comprehensive, more-or-less watertight framework, your best bet is to leave it up to the players.

Does the UN retain control of the Panama and Suez canals?

Depends on whether they have any tangible value, which power would control them on a preset map, etc.

For that matter, who's to say the canals still exist?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Armies with global reach does wonders in keeping the game simple to manage.

However!

Due to the nature of military access, importance can be shifted to the seas. Navies would theoretically have global reach and be able to cut off any place (and logically the only way through a blockade is either permission or fighting the ships), so the importance of the canals militarily would be primarily in roleplay.

However, an economic value being attached to them would be very doable. Certain straits/canals would carry special economic bonuses of a sort. Canals/straits I have in mind are:

-Panama
-Gibraltar-Ceuta
-Suez
-Djibouti-Aden
-Malacca

Five fairly important chokepoints through which trade flows, and control of them naturally comes with benefits. Due to their small number, however, that is why I think NPC / UN control is best.

I think my statutes on the World Bank, IMF, UNPC, etc. were fine. They actually gave the UN some actual pull (and thus reason for players to remain active in it). Of course, some players (primarily Sonereal) didn't like how the UN "took over" diplomacy, but I don't think that's -my- fault. Say what one will of PF's manner of play, he had plenty of diplomacy going on and anyone else could have followed suit. The UN was not the be-all and end-all of diplomacy, due to the simple fact it could get gridlocked, and often was.

HOWEVER, the Constitution itself clearly needed some revision since some players were interested in purposeful derailment. The SCOTUN is an ingenious way to curb such disruptions, but I'll probably just streamline the Constitution a bit. While -I- didn't see a problem with the Home Issues clause, apparently it was favorable to blow it out of proportion.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I really don't get canals to be honest. I think removing them would probably make everything simpler and less of a hasle for you.

 

[filli_noctus]

If soft power is supposed to be the focus then I recommend beefing up the trade rules. Currently the rules for military are quite detailed but the options for trade are free trade, embargo or blockade. I recommend making trade unilateral, add trade 'units' to represent cargo capacity - possibly versions for sea and air traffic - make it so that trade gives a percentage of each ends non-trade income to the other with the end sending the units getting a larger percentage as standard, but the receiver may place a tarrif which adds to their income at the expense of the sender.

Spoiler Example :

China (the exporter) send 10 cargo to America (the importer). China's industry is 100, America's is 80. Assuming America has not set a tarrif China well recieve a bonus equal to 20% of America's domestic industry and America will receive a bonus equal to 10% of China's giving China a total income for the turn of 116 and America a total of 90.
However, America is getting a bit annoyed at China running away so slaps a 10% tarrif on imports, increasing their income by 1.6 and reducing China's by 1.6 for total income for America of 91.6 and 114.4 for China.

To make the canals play a role the exporter loses income based on distance of sea trade and the canals reduce the distance. Air trade would be less affected by distance (as it can path across sea and land) but would have a higher base cost and lower basic returns

 

[Tani Coyote]

Rather than adding trade units, I've come up with a whole swarm of ideas that punish warmongers. Trade is good to keep simple due to the sheer amount of nations involved in a typical MP; this is why I handle embargoes very differently between major powers and minor.

The trade tech, while valuable, definitely needs revamping; it was way too powerful. I will probably roll with there being a set percentage of world GDP in trade each turn, and where you stand in regards to the rest of the world's trade tech determines how much you get; it keeps the system competitive.

Will probably, to solve the problem of runaway techs, have regular stimuli and cap the rate one's tech can increase per turn.

To make things less complicated, probably will axe WMD and air altogether. Something something electromagnetic fields making high altitude stuff fall apart.

===

Also. I had a diabolical idea. The UN will definitely be weaker so as to accompany it.


Link to video.

 

[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.

Most of this was never addressed.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I've got an idea for tech caps and have decided to send air/WMD to the guillotine.

Have a devilish new occupation system that would tear warmongers apart.

Dunno about an economic collapse, since these are pretty major countries like France, Britain, Germany and the like. However I'll consider a system of implosion.

Corporations will probably cease to exist since they'd have no function other than a chance to make extra money.

I'll debate on making a more in depth economy. However, I want to avoid -too much- complexity.

 

[christos200]

I have an idea about MP3:

Set it in the cold war era.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Actually, after some brainstorming I came up with a pretty genius idea of the time and setting.

It will also be far more pacifistic since there's a lot more to do in peace versus in war. Never mind habitual warmongers will eventually face so many penalties they will buckle under their own weight. Warmongering countries will become so fat they will drop like a stone, into a vat of dissolution. Like a potato, into a deep fat fryer.

 

[Tani Coyote]

On second thought, I'll pose a poll. What would you folks prefer economically:

-The standard population * Industry * tax rate formula, OR
-One where economic size is determined by natural resources. This is more complex and would likely cause far more stratification. I have an idea that would eliminate the need for a resource map, but it doesn't make it any less complicated.

 

[Tyo]

The latter.

 

[christos200]

The latter.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Latter

 

[Mosher]

Ladder

 

[Patriotic_Fool]

The first one. That's the only exploitable economic system :3

*mumbles*

Although I'm sure I can figure out the new system..

 

[Sonereal]

Resources.