New NESes, ideas, development, etc

[Birdjaguar]

Been watching a movie for three days now, eh?

It was a great movie!

Actually, I've was not at home Friday, Saturday and until now today. So other than a lunch engagement at 2:00, I will spend the today catching up on NESing things. You are on that list.

 

[North King]

Some scattered ideas which I'm looking for general replies to:

Stat list:

[Nation Name]
Government: [Type] - [Ruler] (? A / ? M / ? F) - [Player]
Religion: [From Most to Least Adherents]
Factions: [Name (Influence, Loyalty)]
Economy: [Agriculture]; [Production]; [Trade]
Tax Rate: [Domestic]; [Trade]
Military: [Leadership] - [Standing]; [Levy]; [Garrisons]; [Cost]
Infrastructure: [Systems (Cost)]
Budget: [Income] - [Mandatory] = [Available]
Technology: [Age]; [Advances]
[Description]

* * * * * * * * *​

Ruler

Attributes are the qualities of your ruler, divided into three categories. Administrative is his ability to govern domestically. This affects numerous things: what economic growth you will see, the level of corruption, the degree of success achieved by your projects, the ease of transition to a new technology, and so on. Military is self explanatory. This affects his ability to make military reforms, lead troops himself in combat, and generally direct military ventures. Foreign skills are hard to implement. Nominally, they are the ability of your ruler in diplomacy. Naturally, other players will ignore this. However, NPCs will certainly pay attention to it, and you’ll find dealing with foreign factions or conducting embassies will be easier the higher this stat is.

* * * * * * * * *​

Thoughts?

 

[jalapeno_dude]

I think (and you've probably already thought about this) that this attribute system only works for a limited period of history. Certainly in the modern era, rulers usually don't conduct face-to-face diplomacy, and they definitely don't lead troops. I also think that the level of corruption, ability of the bureaucracy, etc, aren't necessarily effected by the abilities of the ruler. Indeed, I'd argue that one of the major point of bureaucracy is to separate the head of state from the state itself.

Also, if you're separating out production and agriculture in the economy stat, why not separate them in the tax rate as well? Otherwise, there's not much point in knowing the breakdown between them, since it doesn't ultimately affect your income.

 

[North King]

Certainly in the modern era, rulers usually don't conduct face-to-face diplomacy,

This is very true, though they have a great deal of effect on said diplomacy.

and they definitely don't lead troops.

Depends on the leader, but yeah.

I also think that the level of corruption, ability of the bureaucracy, etc, aren't necessarily effected by the abilities of the ruler. Indeed, I'd argue that one of the major point of bureaucracy is to separate the head of state from the state itself.

I suppose, but I would argue that a ruler can create a reformist movement centered around him, and thus his administrative skills turn out to matter highly.

In any case, I suppose the stats do not merely rate the ruler himself, but also the administration around them.

Also, if you're separating out production and agriculture in the economy stat, why not separate them in the tax rate as well? Otherwise, there's not much point in knowing the breakdown between them, since it doesn't ultimately affect your income.

Three tax rates may become unmanageable. It also could be argued that production is extremely hard to tax for long periods in history, and that at some point it and agriculture become mostly indistinguishable in the nation's overall GDP.

I will look into it, however.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Three tax rates may become unmanageable. It also could be argued that production is extremely hard to tax for long periods in history, and that at some point it and agriculture become mostly indistinguishable in the nation's overall GDP.

I will look into it, however.

I agree--but then why bother separating agriculture and industry at all?

 

[North King]

I agree--but then why bother separating agriculture and industry at all?

Mostly for the mod's benefit: keeping track of where the income is coming from.

 

[Birdjaguar]

After some discussion with Disenfrancised, this is what we've come up with, following the aforementioned cubic model:

<snip>

It's not possible to have two cubes of distinguishably different color, so two equal cubes are used--their results can be presented on two different maps (likely half-scale, for space concerns), as mixing the results is either ugly or confusing.

Each cube is 6x6x6 (I am, as far as I know, not an agent of Satan, so don't start) with each major axis representing a trend line in per capita production, as per Dis' original map. The intersection of the three trend lines is where none are prevalent. The trend line equidistant from all of them is a secondary axis along which all are equal. A representation has been included for the spatially challenged.

The two cubes are "Energy vs. Extraction vs. Agriculture" which represents the overall value of what sorts of resources a nation possesses (and is exploiting), and "Services vs. Light Industry vs. Heavy Industry" which represents how those resources are being employed (if they are).

This breaks up the previous "Economic power" map into two separate maps, but simultaneously does away with the need for symbols as expressed on that map.

Thoughts and criticism are welcome.

I like the idea, but find if difficult to read the sublte changes in color. Your 666 model has 216 possible combinations for Energy/Extraction/Agriculture. I think that trying to compare nations would be difficult. Two ideas come to mind. First just use three numbers to locate where a nation is in the cube. 1/1/1 is the lower left corner. 6/6/1 would be the opposite corner in the same level (maximum energy, maximum extraction and 1 agriculture). As ag is added, the last number would increase until 6/6/6 is reached in the top layer. With numbers, a single string would be needed to for each measurement cube used. Also by using numbers, you can use formulas to act as checks and balances so a nation cannot increase too much in one area without some advances in others.

But part of this seems to be about color and how that could be mapped to scores. If 1/1/1 is white and 6/6/6 is black, then assign colors to each score to fit the progression and that are easily interpreted: blues (lighter to darker) are energy emphasis, yellows (lighter to darker) extraction and reds (lighter to darker) agriculture. Greys/browns might be balanced. Since you are using primary colors, the mixing should be relatively easy. 3/4/4 could be 3 parts blue/4 parts yellow and 4 parts red.

If 216 colors is too difficult, then go with a 4 or 5 point scale and only use 48 or 125 colors. That is probalby sufficient for NESing purposes anyway

 

[Birdjaguar]

Some scattered ideas which I'm looking for general replies to:

Stat list:

[Nation Name]
Government: [Type] - [Ruler] (? A / ? M / ? F) - [Player]
Religion: [From Most to Least Adherents]
Factions: [Name (Influence, Loyalty)]
Economy: [Agriculture]; [Production]; [Trade]
Tax Rate: [Domestic]; [Trade]
Military: [Leadership] - [Standing]; [Levy]; [Garrisons]; [Cost]
Infrastructure: [Systems (Cost)]
Budget: [Income] - [Mandatory] = [Available]
Technology: [Age]; [Advances]
[Description]

* * * * * * * * *​

Ruler

Attributes are the qualities of your ruler, divided into three categories. Administrative is his ability to govern domestically. This affects numerous things: what economic growth you will see, the level of corruption, the degree of success achieved by your projects, the ease of transition to a new technology, and so on. Military is self explanatory. This affects his ability to make military reforms, lead troops himself in combat, and generally direct military ventures. Foreign skills are hard to implement. Nominally, they are the ability of your ruler in diplomacy. Naturally, other players will ignore this. However, NPCs will certainly pay attention to it, and you’ll find dealing with foreign factions or conducting embassies will be easier the higher this stat is.

* * * * * * * * *​

Thoughts?

What is the net effect you are trying to achieve in game play with these stats? These questions come to my mind:

Add to or subtract from player control of his nation?
Shift the focus for players from a nation's interactions with other nations to managing internal affairs?

 

[North King]

What is the net effect you are trying to achieve in game play with these stats?

Improving realism and overall enjoyment.

Add to or subtract from player control of his nation?

I suppose it would be subtracting from, since in the full ruleset the player acts as the head of government and not the nation itself.

Shift the focus for players from a nation's interactions with other nations to managing internal affairs?

Not really. Internal affairs will be expanded in importance, but hopefully not at the expense of external ones.

The general theory behind the rules is that the least important decisions of the moderator are the most formulaic, and the most important are the ones left to the discretion of the mod.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Improving realism and overall enjoyment.

I suppose it would be subtracting from, since in the full ruleset the player acts as the head of government and not the nation itself.

Not really. Internal affairs will be expanded in importance, but hopefully not at the expense of external ones.

The general theory behind the rules is that the least important decisions of the moderator are the most formulaic, and the most important are the ones left to the discretion of the mod.

Please elaborate on your last sentence. What are some of each type of decision?

If the most important of a mod's decisons are left to the player, then his second most important decisions become is most important. Examples will help here.

 

[flyingchicken]

What does anyone think of using Civ4's World Builder and Civ4's combat system as modding tools?

I was thinking of starting one (a NES modded with the aid of the aforementioned... thingies) right off, but I realized that my Civ4-bearing PC is under repair and will stay that way for the next month or so. Therefore, I just decided to throw the idea out, hoping that people might discuss it.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

DaftNES started off as a game of Civilization 3.

 

[das]

How doth one measure attributes of rulers? I mean, stats inevitably end up being rather approximate and arbitrary, but I fear that this would be taking it to a new level.

 

[Symphony D.]

Also by using numbers, you can use formulas to act as checks and balances so a nation cannot increase too much in one area without some advances in others.

The colors are numbers. What sense does it make to do work that can be outsourced to the other side? If you can't distinguish them, you can look up their numbers (and it's very simple). Otherwise, it can be continued to assume you have high-quality optics.

I'm not a believer in catering to the lowest common denominator, because all that does is continue to allow them to be the lowest common denominator.

blues (lighter to darker) are energy emphasis, yellows (lighter to darker) extraction and reds (lighter to darker) agriculture. Greys/browns might be balanced.

It's CYMK or RGB. There is no other option. In fact, switching between the two does nothing of substance either due to how they're oriented (both are on the same cube). The middle will always be gray, and you can't rotate out the corners. I believe you're underestimating the difficulty of doing this.

If 216 colors is too difficult, then go with a 4 or 5 point scale and only use 48 or 125 colors. That is probalby sufficient for NESing purposes anyway.

255 is not easily divisible by 3 or 4. That would also require doing independent work instead of simply deriving it from somewhere.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The colors are numbers. What sense does it make to do work that can be outsourced to the other side? If you can't distinguish them, you can look up their numbers (and it's very simple). Otherwise, it can be continued to assume you have high-quality optics.

It's CYMK or RGB. There is no other option. In fact, switching between the two does nothing of substance either due to how they're oriented (both are on the same cube). The middle will always be gray, and you can't rotate out the corners. I believe you're underestimating the difficulty of doing this.

255 is not easily divisible by 3 or 4. That would also require doing independent work instead of simply deriving it from somewhere.

You are probably correct that I do not undestand the complexity of the problem. That is why we have people like you--to let people like me know what cannot be done.

You seem to be starting with the premise that a color range can be used to represent a collection of X/Y/Z scores. You build the color range and fit it to the grid which identifies the score.

I think that you should start with the scores (4x4x4 or 5x5x5 or 6x6x6 cubes) and manually assign a color to each possible score combination. Then you assemble the cube based on the colors you assigned to each score combination. That way each possible combination of scores (say 3/2/4; 3 energy, 2 extraction, 4 Agriculture) has its own CYMK or RGB specifically assigned to it. The order of the colors in the cube would 100% determined by whoever builds the cube.

If you limit yourself to a 4x4x4 cube, then you could, in theory, populate 5 differnt cubes without duplicating colors. 3 or 4 seems more reasonable.

 

[Symphony D.]

That way each possible combination of scores (say 3/2/4; 3 energy, 2 extraction, 4 Agriculture) has its own CYMK or RGB specifically assigned to it. The order of the colors in the cube would 100% determined by whoever builds the cube.

You're not understanding me, and your use of the terminology indicates you don't understand what you're saying either. You can either have a wide variety of colors on a cube, and have some of them be difficult to differentiate and have to copy the cube; or you can have a small variety of colors that will be vastly more difficult to differentiate.

You need three primary color axes per cube (red, green and blue or yellow, magenta and cyan). You also need diametrically opposite initial and final points (white and black). The trouble is that the gradients from either set of color axes will yield the other set in the opposing corners or somewhere along the gradient. This cannot be helped.

If you pick some other colors, like lets say yellow, orange, and brown to be your primary axes, you can bet money that the intermixing values will be vastly more difficult to read than the current cube is.

The solution is no solution at all. Furthermore there is nothing stopping you from mentally imposing a grid system onto the colors without each of them being wildly different, which would be damned ugly to boot. And lastly, each color effectively is an X,Y,Z coordinate system due the combinations of its hexadecimal or RGB values: Blue is Y, Green is X, and Red is Z. As I said, why should the numbers be made plain when you can look them up yourself? They're inherent to the system. The only people who could not mentally assign a spatial value to a give square are those who have difficulty processing spatial data to begin with.

As I said, I'm not here to cater to the LCD. If someone's brain function is impaired, that's their problem.

If you limit yourself to a 4x4x4 cube, then you could, in theory, populate 5 differnt cubes without duplicating colors. 3 or 4 seems more reasonable.

Would you be arguing that 3 or 4 degrees of military training makes more sense than 9 or 11? 3 or 4 degrees of civilian administration? 3 and 4 makes it so the indicator doesn't tell you anything of value; if you're going to cut it down that far you may as well cut it out entirely. 3 is exceptionally worthless and I'm shocked you're even suggesting it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You're not understanding me, and your use of the terminology indicates you don't understand what you're saying either. You can either have a wide variety of colors on a cube, and have some of them be difficult to differentiate and have to copy the cube; or you can have a small variety of colors that will be vastly more difficult to differentiate.

Yes it does seem that we are missing each other. Rather than make you explain yourself again, I will try to explain more concretely what I am trying to get across. You can then tell me why it won't work.

We will start with a 2x2 grid with four cells. The top left is 1/1 the top right is 1/2. On the second row we have left to right 2/1 and 2/2. These represent industry and agriculture scores. I have assigned colors to each cell as follows. the scores are first RGB and second CYMK;

1/1: 40-0-22; 0-100-46-60 Burgundy
1/2: 84-67-7; 0-20-92-16 Tan
2/1: 0-0-39; 100-100-0-61 Blue
2/2: 100-0-100; 0-100-0-0 Pink

The colors are not very flattering or progressive, but they could be if I picked them more carefully. So now our actual scores, as determined by whatever game mechanism is in use, have been translated into the colors that I want to use in my cube (2x2 grid). If my cube was larger, I would still assign a color (RGB or CYMK) of my choosing to each possible score in the gid/cube. I put each color exactly where I want it to create the differentiation I want to see. A "simple" lookup table could automate the process.

Is this clearer?

You need three primary color axes per cube (red, green and blue or yellow, magenta and cyan). You also need diametrically opposite initial and final points (white and black). The trouble is that the gradients from either set of color axes will yield the other set in the opposing corners or somewhere along the gradient. This cannot be helped.

That is why I would not use predefined gradients.

If you pick some other colors, like lets say yellow, orange, and brown to be your primary axes, you can bet money that the intermixing values will be vastly more difficult to read than the current cube is.

The cube would only be difficult to read if I choose to fill it with similar colors or do a bad job of assigning colors.

The solution is no solution at all. Furthermore there is nothing stopping you from mentally imposing a grid system onto the colors without each of them being wildly different, which would be damned ugly to boot. And lastly, each color effectively is an X,Y,Z coordinate system due the combinations of its hexadecimal or RGB values: Blue is Y, Green is X, and Red is Z. As I said, why should the numbers be made plain when you can look them up yourself? They're inherent to the system. The only people who could not mentally assign a spatial value to a give square are those who have difficulty processing spatial data to begin with.

As I said, I'm not here to cater to the LCD. If someone's brain function is impaired, that's their problem.

I don't see how LCD fits into the picture at all. If your posting efforts are only for self gratification, then you should masterbate elsewhere , but if you are interested in improving the way things are done here (as I think you are), then whatever you propose should have a component that will actually work for at least some small segment of the people, but not exclude those for whom it is a stretch. Those who can master it will come. I do not write my rules for every NESer; they are for those who are willing to make the effort to figure them out and subject themselves to a more structured game. But as the creator of those rules, it is also my obligation to make them accessble to those who might choose to try them out. That is how you raise the overall level of game play.

Would you be arguing that 3 or 4 degrees of military training makes more sense than 9 or 11? 3 or 4 degrees of civilian administration? 3 and 4 makes it so the indicator doesn't tell you anything of value; if you're going to cut it down that far you may as well cut it out entirely. 3 is exceptionally worthless and I'm shocked you're even suggesting it.

The level of scoring and hence complexity is whatever is appropriate for the game and the item being scored. My suggestions for 3-4 levels were related to possible limitations on colors and trying not to duplicate them across different cubes.

 

[Symphony D.]

Is this clearer?

Somewhat. The more I hear, the more useless it sounds. Here's why:

1. Breaking it up so the colors are non-associative makes a cubic structure less intuitive, not more. You are relying on the structure of the cube to determine the rank of the color. This makes the color worthless, because you cannot understand the map without the cube at-a-glance. This is not true of the existing cube, where you can ballpark the figure and then go and look it up if you're really unsure. You may as well just throw a number on the map and discard the cube entirely. The entire reason the cube is being utilized is to remove structures from the map.
2. Direct representation of statistics is useless and is not the function of this exercise. The numbers are already in the statistics and can be looked up. The function of this is to display data in an at-a-glance capacity, not to provide intricate information. Preicse delineation between two shades is unnecessary because a player will, if nothing else, have an idea where his nation falls in output, and again, if he is unsure, can either check his statistics, or pull the image up in paint and look at it carefully. Precision isn't a high priority.
3. The only areas of the cube where someone who is not colorblind would have major difficulty in distinguishing shades, in my estimate, would be the pastels and some of the violets, and to be really quite honest, the number of countries occupying the former in any given setting is likely to be low.

That is why I would not use predefined gradients.

You are quite free to make an opposing system and attempt to implement it. I continue to find your solution unworkable and unnecessary as per the opening argument above. The gradient is what makes the system succeed in its intended function as expressed by myself and Disenfrancised. You seem to be envisioning some other function entirely.

The cube would only be difficult to read if I choose to fill it with similar colors or do a bad job of assigning colors.

See above.

But as the creator of those rules, it is also my obligation to make them accessble to those who might choose to try them out. That is how you raise the overall level of game play.

And the existing cube is accessible to people who are not impaired beyond the normal level. I don't see you pushing for the development of maps for the blind, or for the use of Simple English to accommodate those who have reading disabilities or for whom English is not their first language. I can use it just fine and apparently so can many, I would dare say most, other people. I therefore see devising a "simpler" system (which I do not see as simpler or more accessible to any capacity) as catering to a niche group, particularly in a community which only supports maybe 60 people to begin with. And I am personally not willing to waste the time.

If you believe it to be a cause worth championing, you may expend the effort yourself. I personally see no need, have seen no appreciable demonstration of need, see no superior alternatives, and will have no part in it.

The level of scoring and hence complexity is whatever is appropriate for the game and the item being scored. My suggestions for 3-4 levels were related to possible limitations on colors and trying not to duplicate them across different cubes.

Incorrect. The only sort of games which could truly benefit from this sort of data display are industrial plus. Using this sort of data display to begin with also necessitates a minimum level of detail to begin with, otherwise there is no reason to display the data.

It has also been stated the simple counter to duplicate cubes is separate maps. This is salient even if some other type of cube is devised because virtually every method of displaying two types of data together on a singular map is unappealing and quite frankly hideous. I continue to fail to see how engineering multiple separate cubes will solve that, particularly when their colors are assigned in an arbitrary fashion to improve single-color identification.

 

[Supermath]

From the insane mind of Supermath...

Just a thought: How about a NES where the players are given the starting map (as in a normal Althist NES with a PoD), and it is the job of the players themselves to provide the background (as long as it's not too ridiculous).

 

[das]

That's how those things often used to happen, and still happen to some (admittedly much lesser) extent today.