New NESes, ideas, development, etc

[erez87]

That's why I almost always only plan strategically and not tactically. I know I suck at tactics, so I let my imaginary generals deal with that.

 

[Dachs]

Clearly if both plans are dumb then it stands to reason that both players can't simultaneously lose.

Precisely my point...

 

[spryllino]

Precisely my point...

Which illustrates that you were nitpicking.

------------

More to the point, I find this self-deprecating "I'm sure I'm quite as bad as the next NESer" to be ridiculous. I'm not sure I even subscribe to Dachs's "all players are too willing to go to war" rule, but even if it's true, surely a better response to this would be suggesting ways to compensate, or, as an individual player, to avoid this tendency, rather than simply claim that it's a fault that you all possess purely from the very fact you're NESers? Dachs is surely saying not that NESers ipso facto have to be too eager to fight, but rather that NESers tend to be too eager to fight, which is an entirely different thing. We, as NESers, can resist this tendency, and we can play IC. It's absurd, counter-productive, and delusional just to say, "Yeah, I know I obviously do it wrong," when you could be resolving to have this element of NESing at the forefront of your mind next time, and not doing the same thing again.

Besides, I have never engaged in OOC warmongering in my view; I fail to see why other people do so. I know it's on a far smaller scale in that the whole thing is imaginary, and so death counts for less; but then victory counts for less, and then defeat counts for less too. To my mind, the outcome of a campaign matters relatively little; the deaths also matter relatively little; but inasmuch as the outcome matters, the deaths matter too, because, IC as well as IRL, a victory at the cost of many lives is a sour victory, and defeat at the cost of many lives is a particularly catastrophic defeat. It therefore strikes me as irrational to not care about the death of your population, because surely in any reasonable estimation of what you have achieved, you have achieved less, as a player, if half your people are dead? Therefore I really think that those of you who do do this should try to see that a victory with half your people dead is going to be less of a victory anyway, for you as a player, not for some hypothetical number of imaginary war widows and orphans, and so it is probably better to avoid the casualties.

My problem with this is when one player gets an upper hand it almost always makes the demands of the current 'victor' leading to full annexation or such a hobbling that it could be difficult to enjoy playing that nation anymore. This also needs to be coupled with the time length of the NES. Few Neses last long enough for a 'losing' nation to recover and be fun to play out that recovery. So its a mix of unrealistic war victory demands (which is both cause and effect of the giant WWII wars) and the limited length of playing time a NES has.

This assumption is largely self-fulfilling, I think.

 

[Adrogans]

Yes and yet I see it all the time. It should be easily avoidable yet we all do it.

As for the tendency to go to war I try to play up my nation more so in that regard. I mean if I am playing the Mongol Horde as opposed to playing Belgium obviously the tendency for war would be very different.

 

[spryllino]

Yes and yet I see it all the time. It should be easily avoidable yet we all do it.

Adrogans, I can't tell you from my own experience whether you're guilty of it, but it's completely slanderous to say that everyone is. I'm not, and I hope I never will be, and I am willing to defend as IC any wars I have fought and any peaces I have made. I could tell you of other people that I don't believe ever to been guilty of OOC warmongering. Therefore you are quite wrong.

Moreover, you say it should be easily avoidable. Well, the fact is that it is easily avoidable - or at least I fail to see any reason that would make it anything other than easily avoidable. So don't do it! It's quite simple, and that completely solves the problem. Saying that you do it and then not making any resolve to the contrary is, as I said, absurdly counterproductive.

 

[Adrogans]

I have admitted that I can think of at least 1 instance I have done it. Of course I felt it was in character with the nation yet still I did it.

More often though I see when trying to make peace treaties one side or the other will continually make unreasonable demands and then not negotiate. Strangely I often find myself mediating because I tend to play less war inclined nations (personal preference until recently).

Getting all touchy about the obvious hyperbole of 'everyone does it' is simply childish. You know my meaning. Chill.

And its not OOC warmongering I am discussing, its the demands at the end by one side or the other. Those do tend to be rather harsh and demanding leading to continuation of war. The actual war may not be OOC, but all too often the demands appear to be just that bit excessive up to and including annexation.

 

[Abaddon]

Clearly if both plans are dumb then it stands to reason that both players can't simultaneously lose.

Could you not have a stalemate after very high loses for both?

 

[Adrogans]

It has happened in NESes before.

 

[spryllino]

I agree that those tendencies sometimes display themselves, but I don't remotely feel that they are necessary or typical of NESerkind. They are well worth avoiding though, certainly; I feel, though, that your generalisation "everybody" is stretching the truth even when taken as hyperbole. You're being overly pessimistic, with the result that, at least when I first read yours and Terrence's posts above, I took them as a sign that you were pretty much resigned to this as an essential feature of NESing, which is an unproductive way of regarding it. I, on the other hand, think that the problem in hand is quite easily avoided by anyone, and I am unwilling to let it be observed by you in this pessimistic fashion without pointing out that the NESing community should not just resign itself to this, but should actually act IC.

That is to say that the implications of "everyone does it" are "this is a basic problem with NESing" which is essentially untrue; on the contrary, it's a basic problem with people NESing badly, and I feel this needs to be pointed out.

You may think I'm being obtuse, but I think you're missing the point to a certain extent.


Abaddon: that would happen all the time if that always happened whenever both players screwed up.

 

[Adrogans]

Another aspect though is that many NESes warfare appears to be the only reliable way to improve a nation. Or I guess I should say is that more often than not in 'nation' NESes expansion and growth from War seem to heavily outweigh any internal domestic growth no matter the amounts spent or time used.

Another feature is many NESers do view it as a game where the biggest blob on the map wins. That is one particular I personally have always avoided, and I guess for some NESes this is the point of the game. I tend to avoid those style of NESes.

I do not think I am missing the point so much as having differing personal experiences from yours.

 

[Dachs]

Abaddon: that would happen all the time if that always happened whenever both players screwed up.

tautologies are tautological?

 

[Abaddon]

Abaddon: that would happen all the time if that always happened whenever both players screwed up.

How common is it for both players to screw up? Not very in my experience.. but less you are judging your players very harshly..

 

[spryllino]

Another aspect though is that many NESes warfare appears to be the only reliable way to improve a nation. Or I guess I should say is that more often than not in 'nation' NESes expansion and growth from War seem to heavily outweigh any internal domestic growth no matter the amounts spent or time used.

Another feature is many NESers do view it as a game where the biggest blob on the map wins. That is one particular I personally have always avoided, and I guess for some NESes this is the point of the game. I tend to avoid those style of NESes.

I do not think I am missing the point so much as having differing personal experiences from yours.

Oh no, not at all, I agree with you. I just think you're missing the point in that you seem to be seeing it as an inevitable feature of NESing, rather than as a flaw in some people's NESing which they could do with correcting.

tautologies are tautological?

But what I said wasn't tautological. "That happening all the time" is not intrinsically equivalent to "that happening whenever both players screw up"; what I said was therefore plentifully supplied with untautological consequentiality. I think Abaddon got the gist of what I was saying.

Abaddon, yes, it happens far more frequently that both players simultaneously screw up in a NES (which happens moderately infrequently), than that there is a large scale military catastrophe in which both sides somehow lose at the same time (which happens exceptionally rarely).

 

[Adrogans]

I think it comes down to how the players view NESing. I view it as a story/role playing is central to more of the board game/conquer everything mentality.

And as stated before as well it depends on how the mod sets up the NES.

 

[kkmo]

If warfare is the only reliable way to improve your nation in a NES, then that NES is most-likely terrible (or the player's interpretation of their respective nation is terrible). Though of course there are exceptions and it depends on the NES and what nation you are playing. However, even a nation at war must realistically look at various other events happening within the state (and not only rely on the number of companies they have). War is not only tied to the military.

Otherwise, I don't see what separates a NES from, say, a forum-based variant of Axis & Allies. This is a powerful medium to act out a story or play a game. Better to not squander it.

 

[Adrogans]

Well I meant that some NESes are designed specifically as Board Games such as the Superpowers NESes were. They were fun, but were meant to be Axis and Allies type of game so there its ok.

 

[Dachs]

If warfare is the only reliable way to improve your nation in a NES, then that NES is most-likely terrible (or the player's interpretation of their respective nation is terrible). Though of course there are exceptions and it depends on the NES and what nation you are playing. However, even a nation at war must realistically look at various other events happening within the state (and not only rely on the number of companies they have). War is not only tied to the military.

Yeah, um, arguably, war and warmaking are the foundations of the state; they're necessarily centerpieces of any attempt to act out being a ruler, whether you like it or not - something that the academy as a whole, at least in this country, is distressingly unwilling to acknowledge.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Another aspect though is that many NESes warfare appears to be the only reliable way to improve a nation. Or I guess I should say is that more often than not in 'nation' NESes expansion and growth from War seem to heavily outweigh any internal domestic growth no matter the amounts spent or time used.

Another feature is many NESers do view it as a game where the biggest blob on the map wins. That is one particular I personally have always avoided, and I guess for some NESes this is the point of the game. I tend to avoid those style of NESes.

I do not think I am missing the point so much as having differing personal experiences from yours.

In my (arguably limited) experience as a player or mod, many/some players see war as an action that doesn't have to be tied to IC reasoning or consequences. Wars can, will (and in my opinion, have) been executed for purely OOC reasons and largely gone unpunished. This is a theoretical issue because players can easily wave hands and create a cassus belli to justify their conflicts, or allow the OOC situation to effect the IC situation to the point that OOC opinions inform IC ones.

 

[kkmo]

Yeah, um, arguably, war and warmaking are the foundations of the state; they're necessarily centerpieces of any attempt to act out being a ruler, whether you like it or not - something that the academy as a whole, at least in this country, is distressingly unwilling to acknowledge.

Oh, I definitely don't disagree with you and I believe you misunderstand my point. What you say above is irrelevant, and is a completely different topic altogether than what my comment addressed. First of all, I never said that war and warmaking were not foundations of the state. Second of all, I did not argue that they were not centerpieces of any attempt to act out being a ruler (in fact, that is closer to my point). Third of all, I have no opinion on the inner-workings of "the academy in this country", as a large amount of my education has not come from the United States.

My first point was that war is not the only reliable way to improve your nation. My second point (which elaborates on that) is that war, being the centerpiece of acting out a ruler, easily branches off into other areas of state affairs. Everything is connected, or at least should be, when acting out being a ruler. War is directly related to various other factors other than your current tech level or # of companies. So while the other "reliable ways" might be intermingled or connected to war in some way, they are not purely war for the sake of war, or expanding borders for the sake of expanding them (yet, as I said, it depends; maybe some factions did want war for the sake of war, and some factions did want to expand for the sake of expansion). Understanding these nuances of warmaking is vital to playing the role of a ruler or omniscient controller of a state.

For example, Imagawa Yoshimoto historically did not know the full extent of how much his retainers hated him because he was obsessed with marching to Kyoto with as many men as possible, and looting rice fields along the way. But we can read anywhere in a well-researched book these days that some of his retainers even plotted against him, and therefore our actions automatically have foresight (otherwise, what would be the point, if we play a NES which plays through history exactly as it happened?). Of course, saying suddenly that he knows how much they hate him from the beginning of the game would not be acceptable, but altering the way he treats his domain and his retainers is a good first step. If this had been done, his war effort would have been significantly improved. A player can interpret the current situation and alter it, instead of remain trapped move-for-move in a historical vortex. That does not mean it is okay to encourage a player to be unrealistic, but rather it is okay for the player to use their knowledge of a historical situation and alter the outcome with an exceptional, thought-out process. When it comes to war, that should include a plethora of other activities tied to warmaking instead of the act of war by itself.

Whereas in Axis & Allies, or Risk, you move armies on a map with the goal of taking as many industrial centers or territories as you possibly can. You don't have to pay attention to the nuances of warmaking, and all of the underlying effects war has on the state (be it foreign affairs, society, mindset, culture, and so on).

So it is nice for players, I think, to consider what their faction really wants and what will really provide benefit to their nation, instead of blindly leading armies and desiring more of their color colored in on the map.

 

[Abaddon]

Another Fresh Start NES?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=347590

Please, any glaring errors?

Spoiler :

˜”*°•.The Many Coloured Lands.•°*”˜​

This is a Earth-Map Fresh-Start. That is, we start at the dawn of time, on earth. It is up to you to lead your people to greatness. This is a "classic" NES I hope people are yearning for. I have cut/pasted/ripped/stole/created this rule set from the many NES that have gone before.

The purpose of this NES is to provide a blank environment on which players will create nations of their own invention with qualities of their own design. What if the Gauls were peaceful philosophers? What if Egypt was an agnostic feudal society? What if Aztec was a technological behemoth? Your destiny is your own in this game, and an emphasis is being placed on allowing players a large amount of control over their nation. I'll even allow some silly stuff (bear cavalry?) if you write and spend enough on it! If you provide me with historical data, or other information, I will use it, to your advantage or someone else's disadvantage.. but otherwise, do what you want!

I hope it to be a success, and I hope it's enjoyable to you, the player.

The Ruleset
Stats

Numidia / Abaddon
Religion: Primitive Animism
Age: Early Bronze Age
Size: Petite (2)
Colour: Brown
Economy: 4/2/3 (-2 upkeep)
Army: 4 Archer (2)
Navy: 2 Curragh (1)
Confidence: Resentful
Culture: Average
Projects: Colosseum (++ culture, + army quality), Training Grounds (+ Power), Aqueduct (++ Confidence)

Religion

You start off with a default primitive animism, belief in spirits of nature and things like that. You can create a more advanced religion through a story and the construction of temples. Religions are every bit as powerful here as they are in our world. You can start up a totally original religion, or if your location is suitable, be the birth place for a RL Religion. They give your leader credibility, mould alliances, and break empires.

Age

This stat represents the age your nation is in, tech-wise. The ages of this game will be displayed here as time goes on, however as a general rule of thumb later ages are better. Advancing in age does not necessarily advance your army, though - that requires additional spending.

Size

This is, as the name suggests, the size of your nation. Size is an amalgam of land area, as well as how easy it is for each part of the nation to reach the other part (a colonial empire, by its nature, will have a higher size stat than a nation of equal land and population size that is on one continuous chunk of land). As nations advance and efficiency and communication improve, the size stat will go down. Size determines how costly change is, as well as the effectiveness of various things (plagues, military strategies, increased taxation, etc.). The levels, and the economic points they require, are:

Tiny (1)-Petite (2)-Small (3)-Medium (4)-Large (5)-Huge (6)-Gargantuan (7)-Monstrous (8)

Economy

This stat is represented on the map by the number of black dots in your nation, which represent major cities and are producers of economy. The economy points, are used to grow the economy, spend on armies/navies, build wonders, and do research. In the example, Economy: 4/2/3 , the first number (4) represents the number of EP generated from cities per turn. The second number (2) represents the number of EP generated by your land per turn. The final number is the stash of EP which can be called upon at any time. There are many different ways to grow your economy. To build a new city costs 4EP, though some will spring up naturally over time. Use your imagination and I will reward you. The negative number (-1) represents the amount of gold lost per turn from upkeep, and you must take it into account by yourself. You can choose not to pay the upkeep in a given turn, but you run the risk of all hell breaking loose if you do it for too long.

Army/Navy

As ages advance and more powerful units emerge, units become more powerful. I will use a numerical system. Example: Warrior has (1) power, Spearman has (1.5), Swordsman has (3)... And if you write stories about your units' terrific strength, they may get a little power bonus. 1 economy point will train 1000 soldiers or 10 ships.

With UUs, simply describe them to me and I'll put them into your stats.

Unit Power
Stone Age: Warrior (1), Spearman (1.5), Archer (1.5)
Copper Age: Archer (1.5), Spearman (2), Axeman (2.5)
Bronze Age: Archer (2), Spearman (2.5), Axeman (3), Swordsman (3)
Iron Age: Archer (2), Spearmen (3), Axeman (3.5), Swordsman (4)

You can train your units to have any power level, so spearmen really can beat a tank.. if trained well enough. Each level of training costs double the level in EP.

You may have one Unique Unit at a time which is a modified base unit according to your present age level depending on when the unit was first conceptualized. The Unique Unit you provide me with is an idea of how the unit should function or a basic idea of its purpose, and I will assign a cost to it. Unique units are generally better than ordinary units, however are also more susceptible to environmental factors. Say Arabia creates Camel Archers, which are much better than its ordinary units. They will excel in the homeland and in neighbouring regions but as the borders are pushed, they will become less effective as camels are no good at fighting in, say, tundra. When a nation makes a new type of unique unit, all the old unique units will be retired, with a random percentage of those units moving on to become regular units.

Every 5 Land units and 20 ships costs 1EP in upkeep to maintain.


Confidence

Your people's confidence in nation and leadership. Low confidence will result in revolts and revolutions. High confidence and your people will defend you with their lives, resist subversion and have strong faith in you no matter what you do. This a very important stat, one that in this NES encompasses infrastructure, education, and a whole manner of things. Be inventive with projects and this will rise. If it starts dropping, you know you need to spend on your nation's welfare.

(Hateful, Resentful, Tolerating, Neutral, Respecting, Admiring, Loving, Worshipping)

Culture

This stat represents how cultured your nation is, and the more culture the better. Having more culture decreases the chance that a random event will screw you up, and can allow you to culture flip your neighbours. Culture can increase through stories, wonders, and Cultural or Religious centres and other projects.

(None, Pathetic, Mediocre, Average, Strong, Influential, Outstanding, Wonder of the World)

Projects

This stat displays the projects you have, how close to completion they are, and their end effect. To begin a project, detail it in your orders and the desired outcome. I will decide the cost. A Project only advances with EP spent. Projects are where you will get all sorts done and really let your creativity flair. The better the idea, the cheaper the cost for greater benefits.

Creating Your Own Nation

Please use this template to present your nation idea.

Nation Name / Player
Government:
Colour:
Location:

Storywriting

Writing stories is encouraged in this NES to provide not only culture but flavour to your nation and help customize that nation to your specific tastes. They don't need to be particularly well-written or verbose, but a feeling of knowing that you're trying is all that's necessary. Write stories, draw pictures, whatever, I will reward it.

Orders

Can will be sent by PM, you will quote your stats, as well has have your Nation Name in the Subject Title.

We will begin in 3000 BC, Antiquity.

Barbarians

Barbarians are those peoples who have yet to coalesce into full-fledged states, though they may from time to time form themselves into “state-lets” and city states. Barbarian peoples consist of wide ranging cultures with varying values, some being the stereotypical warmongers and others being highly sophisticated, pacifistic artisans. On the map the general ethnicities and largest peoples will be named. You can have diplomacy with barbarian peoples, but the effectiveness will vary and, depending on the size and unity of the targeted peoples, the amount of people reached will be small. Never underestimate barbarians, but don’t overestimate them either.

Map

Spoiler :

Important Cities

This NES will utilize the three-city system of economic (eco), cultural, and religious centres. They will be key contributors to your economy, your culture, and practically all other stats. If you loose even one of them to an enemy it could be disastrous. In addition, maintaining your important cities will be much more fickle than before. Finally, it is possible to get a centre due to a project, just as before, but such centres may (or may not, but more likely may) be more likely to lose their status.

Economic Centres: Economic centres are cities where economic activity is greatly concentrated. Eco centres are almost always due to the concentration of trade, but industry, finance, banking, etc. can also cause an eco centre to come about. The benefits of an economic center will be one eco per turn, unless for some unforeseeable reason I make an exception. Modern examples of eco centers would include Tokyo, Dubai, Cape Town, London, Rio de Janeiro, and New York.

Cultural Centers: Cultural centers are cities where the culture of a nation, a region, or even of the world is personified. Art, education, nationalism, regionalism, philosophy, science, pan-nationalism, etc. can all contribute to the creation of cultural centers. The benefits of these cities are just as varied as their causes. Modern examples would include Sydney, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Cairo, Oxford, Buenos Aires, and Chicago.

Religious Centers: Religious centers are cities where major religions find there center(s) and where great pilgrimages take place. While religious centers will generally form without outside coaxing, government approval and conversion always help in the forming of such cities. The benefits will be mostly religious in nature, but may also extend into those areas benefited by cultural and economic centers. Modern examples would include Dharamsala, Jerusalem, Mecca, Rome, Istanbul, and Mexico City (Guadalupe).