This seems to be a good idea, but the trouble lies in the specifics. The composition of support for a party and the party's planks themselves shift perceptibly with time, even in a high-res setting, so some degree of breakout is useful, but going too far will be over-strenuous. Victoria's Primary and Secondary Interests is probably as far as one would want to go on an issue breakout, and going by economic sector or income level or whatever is likely asking too much.
If you start providing percentage numbers for support, you're essentially pulling them out of a hat, so perhaps cap it at "Minority, Plurality, Majority, Supermajority," and so on.
I like this.
Symphony D. said:
Since the trend appears to be that players will not determine the outcomes of their elections, this becomes a very important point. What in fact is the player supposed to do during an election year? They will have a vested interest in a particular candidate but if the choice is not up to them, won't they have to have an interest in all the candidates to have some idea of what they're doing? Are they supposed to write stories, or conduct all the different campaign platforms themselves? What's to prevent them from trying to use this to railroad the outcome? The method in which elections are handed will have to be made very clear to prevent gross misunderstandings.
Care should also probably be taken to underline where player authority stops. It's clear that we're not the Executive exclusively, nor are we the totalistic embodiment of government as a whole (except in autocracies, to an extent). There is a bureaucracy and an establishment which is "handled" by the player and outlasts whomever the player is roleplaying with each election, so making sure the dividing point between the temporary and the enduring government is in some way delineated will be important.
I'm kind of on the fence about all this, which is probably a Bad Thing. On one hand, I dislike the idea of a player having control of the 'gestalt consciousness' of the Nation or something like that, on the grounds that even good players would have serious issues with that and frankly we haven't got a lot of those either. On the other hand, I refuse to have multiple players per nation. Stupid waste of player talent. Ideally, the player would play the ruling party, but I find it difficult to reconcile that with allowing the player choice as to which direction to take some of the countries - notably, Japan, the UK, and the US. That element of player choice is something that I deem to be the
sine qua non of any proposed formula for "who the player Actually Plays".
This rather ignores my point. Most nations are generally content to meander along through government after government largely pursuing survival and an advantageous position. Continuous zero-sum expansion is usually rare because it's checked by the similar ambitions of others; there is as much to lose as to be gained. Since this is all a game though, there's really nothing to be lost but time, so players have no problem fighting to their own destruction and "joy-riding" for the sake of glory and blobbing.
Agree on all points except for the rationale for why states don't engage in continuous zero-sum expansion, but I'm notably an unbeliever in that balance of power garbage so take that as you will.
At what point does making players' generals incompetent, as a result of constant complaining when generals "disobey orders" by saving the day, become acceptable/necessary.
Depends on the player's army's institutional situation. If information on this is lacking, go with the player who has least pissed you off - by doing less annoying things in thread, by having less stupid plans in other spheres, by taking more of an interest in the game, by writing more stories or better stories, and so on. If that's a wash, then go with whatever makes for the best story.
If someone comes up with a dumb military plan, they should lose.
No. If someone comes up with a dumb plan that meshes badly with somebody else's plan, that someone should lose. It takes two armies to decide any battle's outcome.
To add something to this conversation: I think players should use battle losses to spin their next move, instead of debate it or accuse the moderator of foul play. It is much more fun to mod and play if someone can take a setback and make it work for them. Even if that leads to another setback, at least the process of becoming the loser in a war was interesting and full of twists and turns. I think the best role-player is one who considers the pathway, and not the destination.
All of this is true, but it's also virtually tautological. The problem is that the majority of players either don't think that way or think that way but don't follow through.
Well, except for the "accuse moderator of foul play" part, which absolutely happens and if it does happen the mod ought to be called out on his BS.
kkmo said:
But overall, I'm not picky and I have enjoyed it when players include a tasteful doctrine section to their order sets. It seems I have taken the middle-ground in this conversation!
Between what and what?
It's my personal opinion that people would get on better in these games if they relaxed. I see people get stressed about the state of their nation, and I just want to tell them "Dude! If things ain't going right, write a story or do something else, plot a bold, new future for your nation. It isn't over 'til it's over!"
You know, I could almost get behind this, if it weren't for a bit of a nitpick.
You almost seem to be encouraging unrealistic - hell, just "bad" - roleplaying. Don't get all worked up about your country being torn apart, just keep fighting and soldier on! It's just a game! The problem is that
people do this already and it's all over the place. Every war is WWII: fight to the death. Your country's well-being doesn't matter because it's imaginary, so why not go all in? I would argue that some NESers don't care nearly enough about the things they play as, and are far too willing to take colossal gambles or drive a continent into
Götterdämmerung for the remotest shot at winning.
