New NESes, ideas, development, etc

[jalapeno_dude]

Of course I can. This is the internet and I can just go away for a while and hope you forget all about it.

Ah, but the fact that you were publishing in the early 80s puts a lower bound on your age...

 

[Israelite9191]

I think Hungarians should have access to Eastern European mercenaries, however, the stereotypical Cossack doesn't hire himself out as a mercenary. Especially not to Catholics.

This is true, I was considering making Ruthenia or Moldavia Eastern European. I should also say that the Cossack situation will change slightly with the next update anyway.....

Maybe you should have access to regions that you have territory in

You do. Hungary has access to Central European, Western European, and Northern European mercenaries..

or territory adjacent to? Or perhaps the latter only in times of peace with said bordering regions...

This is interesting, but again I'm worried about allowing countries access to troops that they shouldn't. I don't want the Mongols purchasing Japanese Ninja.

 

[North King]

This is interesting, but again I'm worried about allowing countries access to troops that they shouldn't. I don't want the Mongols purchasing Japanese Ninja.

Hmm. Perhaps something with more of a grey-scale than definitive regional boundaries is needed, then?

 

[Birdjaguar]

It would appear that this post is for my benefit.

I'm torn between the irony of the fact that I can recognize that:

1. as I am the one who identifies these things as problems, I have a vested interest in working out solutions to them, and as such my relative progress (or lack thereof) does not play in my favor, and
2. that the attitude you are espousing, which boils down to "If you view it as a problem, fix it yourself, and if you don't have solutions or can't do it, you never should have opened your big mouth," is the main reason I have argued against the laziness of the forum, because these are not solutions that lend themselves to solutions by lone individuals.

The only thing that does not play in your favor is your [add adjective] effort to demean others. You could get away with all the rest of it if you were a bit nicer. It is only your . .. .. .. .. .ing and moaning about others that prompts me to say "Show us what you can do!"

I recall, sometime back, that there was a discussion on whether moderators had an implicit contract with their players, or whether they were simply offering a free service and had no reciprocal responsibilities to players. I argued for the former, but was largely out-voiced by proponents of the latter.

In light of that general feeling, I state my opinions thus: I am not responsible for anything. This is a hobby. I do it at my leisure, for my interest, on my time, for my entertainment. When I say there is something wrong with it, I am entitled to that, and if I cannot (not will not, but cannot) fix it, I cannot be held responsible for it. Unlike some other people apparently do, I do not believe I am an expert on everything and capable of magically conjuring all the solutions to every field of problems by myself. Even if I can see a way forward, that has little bearing on my ability to get myself or anyone else there. Nor does my ability diminish my right to call things as I see them.

You have called things as you see them. Most posters know how you feel about the rest of us. Do you think repetition will change us? I don't understand why you feel the need to say it over and over again.

If you disagree, that's marvelous. However, as you seem to be in no rush to aide me other than to pile the responsibility on me, I can honestly say I couldn't care less as to what you think. That goes for anyone else thinking the same. Just because I have ideas or insights but cannot necessarily act on them doesn't diminish their validity, just like something capable of being done immediately isn't necessarily right. I will develop my own solutions in my own time, with or without your help, or that of anyone else, like-minded or not. How long that may take, I can't say. Whether I will ever get there, I can't say. But I will try, because I enjoy this hobby, even if I absolutely loathe how it used to be implemented, and remains implemented by and large to this day.

We clash on a number of different levels, that makes working together more difficult, but I have never not supported your efforts even if I don't contribute to them. In fact my effort to get you to produce something is an encouragement of the change you seek. If you want more accurate combat resolution, then get us a working model to try out. That is how change comes about. If that is not how you work, then fine, just don't expect speedy change along the lines you want.

BTW, you know full well I support collaborative efforts here and have tried to involve the community in my ideas as I have them. I am not an advocate of "do it yourself".

We don't have the budget, time or resources of Wizards of the Coast, or Steve Jackson Games, probably not even the creativity or ability. But we supposedly have passion and interest--and though seeing you stand there self-righteously proclaiming "It's your problem, you fix it," thus reiterating the very reasons hardly a person on this forum contributes gives me pause, it does not dampen my belief in that. If my belief is misplaced, then there is little to this business other than to walk away. But I will try before doing that.

As to you and whatever you want, I spit your own message back at you: it's your problem, come up with your own solutions.

You are mistaken if you think that people here do not contribute to solving problems or creating new approaches to NESing. They may not do it with the frequency you would like or in the manner you prefer, but they do contribute. look up the 80/20 rule.

And as for your last bit. I do try to come up with new ideas and solutions to problems. And I put them in my games to see if they actually work; then make them available for anyone to use in any way they want. In each game I work hard to find ways to make NESing better and raise the bar a little bit. My next one will be no different. By your standards it will be oversimplified and grossly ahistorical. I can't please everyone. In any case, I have not asked of you anything I am not willing to do myself. Clearly, though, what you choose to do is entirely up to you. And have you noticed that for all your "outspokenness" no one has asked you to leave?

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Israelite9191]

Considering most of my ". .. .. .. .. .ing and moaning" focuses precisely on the fact that there is a general refusal to conduct self-appraisal and improvement by other people, I can't exactly be held responsible for it, now can I?

This is absolutely ridiculous. Just because you see faults in other people does not give you the right to excuse your own faults. You are rude, arrogant person and have acted as such for almsot as long as I can remember. Frankly, I think it's about time you owed up to that fact. Have you noticed that the everyone else in the NES forum gets along very well with only very rare, very occassional conflict? That's becuase most NESers: a) don't make it a point to be rude in the large majority of our posts and b) appologise for their transgressions. I'm sure that many people here would appreciate it if you took it upon yourself to respect the basic rules of human interaction as they all do.

Sorry, I'm not your keeper. I work on my own ideas that most of the rest of you find terrible affronts to humanity or some other such nonsense, and those take time.

Many people, such as Dis and jalepeno, enjoy your rules. Even as much as I generally don't like them, I know I enjoy seeing what you come up with. The difference is that when people don't like your proposals, they will say so, often directly and bluntly, but without being rude, arrogant, dismissive, or offensive.

Brainwashing the rest of you into being critical and motivated people is not high on my agenda as a result. You have all proved highly resistant to the idea.

Yet another incredibly arrogant and rude statement. You categorically condemn every member of the NESing community as being lazy and unwilling to be self-reflective. Have you ever thought that other people might just disagree with you? That other people are entitled to their opinions? That, now here's something, other people may be just as rational as you? If you disagree with us, fine, but the rudeness and arrogance are unnecessary. I respect your opinions and your intellect, so please, respect mine.

This zeitgeist of "I am sufficiently expert in all fields to arbitrarily decide things as moderator better than any rule set derived by my peers, regardless of how expert the sources" without considering that the implications that one is essentially declaring themselves beyond any form of criticism is a handy-dandy example of a lack of thinking things through. But if I criticize that, suddenly it's a rude character attack. Right.

How are people declaring themselves beyond criticism? Myself, and the vast majority of Mods in fact, take criticism readily and often do ammend their decisions. Further, your sarcasm and defensive attitude here are yet more examples of exactly the sort of rudeness that Bird was talking about.

Maybe because I see the same wrong ideas being repeated again and again no matter how many times they are disproved.

Just becuase you think that you have won the argument doesn't mean other people do. I personally have not found your arguments fully convincing, while you obviously think differently. I'm fine with that, and you ought to be, but you insist on making sure that there are no disenters, that everyone agree with your own view points. Further, just because you disagree with people does not give you the right to be condescending, arrogant, and rude towards them.

Golly gee willickers, Radioactive Man, it'd sure be helpful if somebody was actually to weigh in on the ideas I proposed regarding that if they were interested in it! Boy howdy!

I don't believe there is a more perfect example of the rude, arrogant, condescending sarcasm that Bird and myself have been talking about.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Masada]

Honestly, Symphony is in the right here.

Lets have a role-play, since the forum is all touchy, politically correct and ****.

So, so, so, so, so too simple.

I am with Symp on this one. Maybe a few people will enjoy it but I most certainly do not have hours and hours and hours of time to try to direct a country in a NES.

Now we have the right idea, not only would our 'fictional' Symphony be expressing a personal opinion with a fair dose of partisanship but it would be adding nothing to the debate.

The Respondent would also be guilty of adding nothing to the debate and of willfully misinterpret the rule-set to boot. Ho-hum.

In any case Symphony, your tone is incredibly rude and entirely unwarented. If you disagree with me, disagree with me, even do so bluntly, but do not talk down to me with that silly, arrogant attitude that just makes you look like a jackass.

Now not to sound cynical... but would not the same hold true for you? After throwing out a one liner which was both rude, insensitive, entirely unwarranted and entirely unnecessary. Could that no be construed as arrogant and silly, 'I pronounce it so therefore it is!'

Oh my god I cannot believe that you guys just did that. Again.

People have different preferences. I like NESes that have almost no rules. Other people like NESes that have a lot of very detailed rules. Both types have pluses and minuses. Can we get over this as a community now?

... still them and us! Your either with us [the old guard, reactionary, conservatives] or with the terrorists [those who do not tow the line]. No we cannot get over this as a community when people interject with nonsensical one liners and disingenuous three liners. You are free to express your personal preferences, but to claim the moral high ground in this debate is ridiculous.

Israelite9191 and Stormbringer you were both just playing to a confirmation bias you have of Symphony, you really had little ground to criticize. You two were both acting in exactly the way you projected onto Symphony, as partisan hacks.

Diversity is peachy. I just don't like it when people start stereotyping, pigeon-holing, and mischaracterizing my own or similar opinions on baseless accusations they can't substantiate. Smacks of sniping to me. My toleration for it is low.

Symphony is right on the money. You acted in a way that mis-characterized simulationism and to boot attacked him for taking you to task about it. For the champions of diversity your rather critical of anyone who does anything different or against the norms of the self appointed guardians of 'true' NESing.

My heroes include Jeremy Clarkson, Gregory House, and Anthony Bourdain. I can't blame you for not having noticed due to your frequent sabbaticals, but I have owned up to these traits on at least half a dozen occasions and I make no apologies for them at all.

Symphony is also right, you can't make issue of who he is, he's owned up to it, never denied it and if you don't realize that some things are sufficiently common in human nature such that they cannot constitute a surprise then meh!

 

[silver 2039]

This is true, I was considering making Ruthenia or Moldavia Eastern European. I should also say that the Cossack situation will change slightly with the next update anyway.....

GAHH!!! If they revolt I'll slaughter them all.

 

[sp1023]

Isn't Cossack like a severe, scary, bald Russian person?

 

[Turner]

No. It's a Russian military unit.

 

[sp1023]

Are they bald? Because my parents were making fun of this bald uncle and calling him "a cossack"

 

[Turner]

I'm sure some were bald. Whether or not it's indicative of them, I don't know. Did you read the link?

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Since I'm here offending you with my arrogance and all, and I didn't see this until just now I'd like to finally say after years of tolerating such commentary that for as much as you and Iggy love looking back on StKNES5, it was quite frankly a thoroughly banal and mediocre game featuring NPCs that rolled over and died from gusts of wind and exceptionally limp-wristed moderation. I could have colonized the entire Pacific Rim by 1000 BC if I had stayed, it was sufficiently easy to manipulate, and that's what I quit it when I did. It was a boring cakewalk.

Given that this is the NES Development thread, I'll say that stKNES5 was useful because it proved once and for all the game-breaking possibilities of trade routes. The dominant strategy was to avoid wars simply because trade routes were just too powerful, being free to start and giving an economy every three turns. Given that stat increases were incredibly slow otherwise under Kamilian's rules, this was the only sane way to get a strong economy. I'm glad that these trade route rules, which used to be fairly common, have vanished.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Given that this is the NES Development thread, I'll say that stKNES5 was useful because it proved once and for all the game-breaking possibilities of trade routes. The dominant strategy was to avoid wars simply because trade routes were just too powerful, being free to start and giving an economy every three turns. Given that stat increases were incredibly slow otherwise under Kamilian's rules, this was the only sane way to get a strong economy. I'm glad that these trade route rules, which used to be fairly common, have vanished.

Aye. *Shudders at the memory of the ITNES(ITs 1-3) trade centres giving a whole economy level every other turn*

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Since I'm here offending you with my arrogance and all, and I didn't see this until just now I'd like to finally say after years of tolerating such commentary that for as much as you and Iggy love looking back on StKNES5, it was quite frankly a thoroughly banal and mediocre game featuring NPCs that rolled over and died from gusts of wind and exceptionally limp-wristed moderation. I could have colonized the entire Pacific Rim by 1000 BC if I had stayed, it was sufficiently easy to manipulate, and that's what I quit it when I did. It was a boring cakewalk.

I can appreciate that you probably enjoyed it so much because it was a formative experience, but it wasn't a terribly good one. Please stop mentioning it as if it was something to aspire to. It's like listening to somebody gush over Star Wars Episode I.

The prefix 'St' was there for a reason Symphony- it was a creative engine with few limitations. Sure, it was unrealistic, but it was fun. My idea of fun isn't playing a system to its limits, it's forming a narrative within which one is closely involved, where stories and creativity abound over strict realism and simulations.

It's also because they usually don't say what they think, like most humans in real life, which is unusual, because there aren't really any of the repercussions and it's so much faster. I prefer honesty to nicety.

And Sym, you do realise that when other people aren't incessantly mean, they may not be constantly thinking negative things about other people?

 

[jalapeno_dude]

And Sym, you do realise that when other people aren't incessantly mean, they may not be constantly thinking negative things about other people?

Inconceivable!

But if you feel positively towards any various change suggested, you should post your support (and preferably some constructive criticism) rather than remaining silent--it seems to require a critical mass for changes to catch on around here.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Well, I'm ambivalent and a little conflicted, hence my lack of comments. I think that Disenfrancised's economy work looks very good, and I would like to see it in action. However, I have a continuing concern that a NES with it will struggle, due to perceived complexity. However, if it manages to last, I think it would work out very well.

 

[Terrance888]

Wow... I was such a Noob!

pre-CharlNES: Rise of the Central Valley

How about I revamp the stats, redo the style and put a good pre-story to it. It can start after the collaspe of a roman-like empire.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Next section, this time government!

Politics
Name of Government(Head)/Type{Description}/Ascendant Faction{Player}
Quantity of Political Capital/Popularity{Description}/International Prestige{Description}
*Other Major Political Faction/Influence{Description}

Bureaucratic
Civil Service Structure{$Loyalty$}/Effectiveness{Regionalism}/Size/£Cost/Strain
*Standing Budget Items/Percentage
*Policy/Description Effect/Upkeep/Lifecycle

The the two subsections of the government section are the real meat of what the player controls. In the politics section is a skimming description of the nations political culture and the capabilities of the player. The first line shows the name of your government, which is merely a stylistic designation and the type such as absolute monarchy, presidential democracy, etc. plus a brief description if the government is unusual in structure. Changing either of these is obviously a big deal, and will need tons of political capital or some sort of violent revolution. Finally on the first line is the 'ascendant faction' which is the political party, group, person etc. who controls the nation. This can obviously vary quite a lot, for example the 2004 US would be “Republican Party (Warmongers, social conservatives, business interests)” whilst 1790 France would be “Monarch and pro-king Parisian Aristocracy”. The player name is next to this in order to remind people to play as the rulers rather than an omnipresent potency controlling the nation.
On the next line is your current amount of political capital, possibly the most stat in the ruleset, this numeric shows how much your government can do; new policies cost political capital, changing the budget even more capital, new treaties cost political capital, new wars lots of PC, and so on. It will be refreshed every long update with the government gaining PC for having lately done things that please their backers, other factions, powerful outside forces and the populace, and loosing PC for actions that piss those groups off. Your obviously advised to save some PC for crises but PC by its nature is a volatile substance and I would also recommend spending it while you have it! Stories are a way to get free PC, if you can relate them to your policies – support for a war will be much greater if your king starts it off with something inspiring after all. You can go into a deficit of PC if you really wish, but that will make it likely that other factions seizing the leadership role and promote obstinance (in representative and stable societies) and unrest and revolts (in authoritarian and unstable ones). Popularity is a one word ranking of how happy the ascendant faction/majority are with your actions with a possible description. Prestige is a numeric of how the international community sees you (-5 to 5) and is gained by being trustworthy, respectable, stable, and pleasant and lost by the opposite. This actually matters, although it has only a little effect on your own PC it will significantly affect the PC of other players when they cooperate with/oppose you, and it will of course affect how willing short stat nations are to work with you. Finally there is a listing of other factions of import in the nation (most will be organised into one or two oppositions) and a numeric indicator of their influence relative to your own.

The Bureaucratic section describes the structure and strength of your governmental apparatus and what you are currently telling it to do. It starts with a brief description of where your civil service comes from and how it is organised (and you can inquire as to its loyalty via PM). Next there is a one word description and numeric of your systems effectiveness, effectiveness is derived from the size of the bureaucracy, how well funded it is, the cultural environment in which it rests and the quality of your nations technical and higher education, notes will be made if it has high regional variance. Then comes the size of the public sector as a percentage of the whole population, and its median cost, note with the cost you can choose to under fund it or over fund for times to improve its effectiveness. Final is the strain, more policies with a small bureaucracy will make it hard to introduce new ones.
Next is the standing budget items, these show how you're choosing to allocate the money coming in from your tax rate section into the main outlays of the government: Military Maintenance, Infrastructure Maintenance, Social Maintenance, R&D (later on), Savings, Paying off the Debt, Enacting Policies. These are done as percentages in units of 5%, so that they are flexible over time, and changing the proportions costs political capital. Cash automatically flows from taxation to be split up here and paid into the various other sections, surpluses will be put into savings and loans will be automatically taken out to cover deficits (crisis actions are paid out of savings and loans). As a player you only need to look at the budget when things get out off whack, if you need to free up cash for new policies, or you enjoy micromanaging to keep your debts small .
Finally we come to policies, which cover basically anything you want to spend PC on (outside of diplomacy); changing the size of your military, starting a war, building a school system etc. Thus it starts with a name (silly names only accepted if they are funny!), a description of it and its intended effects, and upkeep in cash and possibly PC if it becomes unpopular, and its lifecycle. You can either give the amount of time you want it to take and I'll put in the upkeep to do it in that time, or put in the amount you want to spend per year and it'll be done when its done. The lifecycle can be a descriptor of progress or a numeric if its designed to come in parts, and also can be 'Done' or one of 'Paused', 'Neglected' and 'Degrading' after which it disappears. After a few updates I will clear away old 'Done' policies, their time will have passed or they are now integral to your nation. You can of course have secret policies, which won't appear on the public stats, though these will be vastly more expensive.

Returning to our Great Example of the KoSDN
Politics
Name of Gov/Type/AF: Crown and Riksens stander (King Oscar I)/Slightly Representative Monarchy/King's Nobles and some middle class (Dachs)
PC/Popularity/IP: 4/Liked (Reputation as a Reformer)/2 (Neutral in 4YW, free exporter)
*Other Major Political Faction/Influence
Rising Liberals/0.3 (middle class)
Old Guard/0.2
Norwegian Separatists/0.1

Bureaucratic
Civil Service/Effectiveness{Regionalism}/Size/£Cost/Strain: Meritocratic but not open/Good(Okay in Norway)/1%/£10/Low
*Budget Items/Percentage (of £152)
Military Maintenance/40, Infrastructure Maintenance/20, Social Maintenance/10, Savings/10, Paying off the Debt/10, Enacting Policies/10
*Policy/Description Effect/Upkeep/Lifecycle
Industry Drive/Encouraging Manufacturing in the Baltic/£15/Open-ended
Organising Reform/Creates a new Riksdag with middle class representation/2PC/0.4 complete
A New Ten Thousand/Expands Professional Army//Done