I think you are taking my point as much more complex than it was meant to be. I simply meant by changing the date of the plague a little bit we can end up with a totally different set of political entities dominating Europe.
New NESes, ideas, development, etc
- Thread starter das
- Start date
I think you are taking my point as much more complex than it was meant to be. I simply meant by changing the date of the plague a little bit we can end up with a totally different set of political entities dominating Europe.
bombshoo said:
No, I don't believe I was. A "second dark age" isn't merely indicative of "a totally different set of political entities dominating Europe" it would seem to imply some sort of socio-economic regression - measured in centuries. To be honest instead of increasing the virulence you could just as easily change where it and when it reoccurred. The first bout as more than capable of disrupting the economic fabric in addition to killing lots of people and we know that a second bout was more than capable of exacerbating all the consequences of economic dislocation- by further denuding farmlands and towns of labour, increasing the length and intensity of the struggles between labour and land and often killing more people than the first bout due to inadequate food distribution and the general deteriorating in hygiene. It wouldn't be impossible to strip the Italian city-states of a larger percentage of the population which would have interesting consequences for other non-Italian urban centers, if that was coupled with some other exogenous shock, perhaps external invasion then certainly you could do a heck of alot of damage - which could be measured in centuries. But as Dachs said, if you went the Year of Rice and Salt way, you might as well claim that Aliens did it and leave it at that. The whole value in the exercise of crafting an alternative history, I should think, is in keeping it historically plausible. But then that might just be me...
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
I have an Idea! Make it Spore esque... We have an age of Legends when legendary acts are created, such as the first village to be conquered, first valley cleaned of large predators...
Then we advance a generation at a time until metals and or agriculture are discovered and is spreading.
Then we have the Age of Masters, where new discoveries are made everyday, and specialization is rampant. We will have sociatly in flux as sons farm instead of hunt, winters decimate crops, or animals change migrations. At the end we either have towns or confederations of villages. As the starting cultures start to meet upwards of 4 or more, we reach the next BT.
We again advance a generatin at a time until the Age of Conflict, when we have nations of small cities capable of organizing an army for defence, and trade confederations of larger cities, more homogenios but more relying on the country side. It would take about 10 updates to reach this age, but we would have a great back story, and can start our next, and longest IT. I think this is a good idea!
I'm planning on starting a NES based off of Dachs' Meade at Gettysburg TL (located here, here, here, here, here, and map here). The problem is, I don't have stats, and I hardly consider myself at a position to be able to come up with them out of thin air with any sense of accuracy. So I am asking out in the boards to see if anyone would be willing to help me come up with decent-looking numbers. I plan on copying (or maybe editing a bit) the ruleset used for TNES II, though that could easily change too, if it makes any difference.
You could always ask me.
Design some rules and I can help come up with military stats and possibly the "flavor" stats as well. Economic...I think Masada would be a better person for that.
Well, as I said, I'm planning on mostly copying Thayli's ruleset, though you failed to state what you didn't like about the military rules.
And naturally, if you want to help out, I'm more than willing to let you, especially since you kind of wrote the darn thing.
Circuit
Writing Letters
I'm considering starting a NES of my own. Right now, the concept is basically a DEFCON NES, where players escalate a nuclear war but can't launch a weapon till the situation's been exacerbated to DEFCON 1. Destabilizing events would occur, and players would situate themselves so that they would be less harmed by the nuclear war.
Right now, I'm trying to get a ruleset. Not sure how to work out spending. Since I don't have too much time on my hands, this is supposed to be a lightweight NES, so the ruleset should be relatively simple. I know that there will be nuclear pacts and alliances, so the United States player will be accompanied by Britain and France and other nuclear powers. Yeah, it's all a bit fuzzy.
But one thing that's concrete: this is a school project, so it's supposed to be educational. Not just vaguely educational, like teaching nuclear weapons theory. Players would have to create questions like on a multiple-choice test, then send them as part of their orders. Then the questions would be routed to an opponent to answer, and their performance on the question would affect the outcome of the update. This is sort of based off of how my sophomore and junior English class was structured. This NES won't be hosted on Civfanatics; it would be on the class's website.
So, thoughts? Confounded and confusing, I know, but I've only been thinking of it recently.
Right now, I'm trying to get a ruleset. Not sure how to work out spending. Since I don't have too much time on my hands, this is supposed to be a lightweight NES, so the ruleset should be relatively simple. I know that there will be nuclear pacts and alliances, so the United States player will be accompanied by Britain and France and other nuclear powers. Yeah, it's all a bit fuzzy.
But one thing that's concrete: this is a school project, so it's supposed to be educational. Not just vaguely educational, like teaching nuclear weapons theory. Players would have to create questions like on a multiple-choice test, then send them as part of their orders. Then the questions would be routed to an opponent to answer, and their performance on the question would affect the outcome of the update. This is sort of based off of how my sophomore and junior English class was structured. This NES won't be hosted on Civfanatics; it would be on the class's website.
So, thoughts? Confounded and confusing, I know, but I've only been thinking of it recently.
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
I can't decide if I'm more disturbed or amused that you're trying to coopt the NESing forum into doing your homework. 
Circuit
Writing Letters
I can't decide if I'm more disturbed or amused that you're trying to coopt the NESing forum into doing your homework.
It is not my homework. It's voluntary. Nothing requires me to do this. I'm asking for help with formulating a DEFCON ruleset. Everything else, particularly the questions, I'll come up with myself.
Plus this WON'T be on Civfanatics, so you don't have to worry about being duped into anything.
Circuit
Writing Letters
Once I get a ruleset, I'll probably do a trial run on Civfanatics (without the dumb multiple-choice questions, so it will be just a normal NES), because:
a. I don't have any experience as a mod, so this is the place
b. Good to get a critique from experienced NESers before utter newbs
c. I don't think its fair for NESers to help me with the ruleset and then never see it again. So as a matter of principle, I should let them have fun first.
The story hasn't been quite developed yet, but in essence Kennedy lost the election to Nixon, and the Americans are getting word of some odd activity in Cuba.
Here's some of the military rules, so far:
Description of the DEFCON feature:
Sample stats:
Again, I'm looking for help. Offer criticism.
a. I don't have any experience as a mod, so this is the place
b. Good to get a critique from experienced NESers before utter newbs
c. I don't think its fair for NESers to help me with the ruleset and then never see it again. So as a matter of principle, I should let them have fun first.
The story hasn't been quite developed yet, but in essence Kennedy lost the election to Nixon, and the Americans are getting word of some odd activity in Cuba.
Here's some of the military rules, so far:
Spoiler :
Description of the DEFCON feature:
Spoiler :
Sample stats:
Spoiler :
Again, I'm looking for help. Offer criticism.
Daftpanzer
canonically ambiguous
As a school game it is quite interesting. First you need to decide on how one wins the game, or perhaps, not lose. The rules and player interaction then get designed to support that purpose.
How many players? Do all have nuclear capability?
How do non nuke players participate and influence the game?
Are nations single people or teams?
Your list of ways to spend money should be short and simple like you have it, but each should have some identified role in the play that either helps you win, not lose, or make others losers.
If the goal is keep your population alive, then "civil defense spending" helps you not lose, and ICBMs destroy other nations population.
Does the game end only when a nuclear war begins, or can war be avoided?
ATM I imagine a game where there is a "public" defcon track on the wall and it takes some accumulation of events, spending or points to move it up one level. At the end of each turn the mod tallies the events or spending and may or may not move the tracker. When the marker hits 5, war automatically begins and the casualites counted. Nations may attack early if they choose to end the game early and think that will put them in a winning situation.
Player diplomacy (or lack of it) and war spending will be the driver of the defcon level.
Part of each turn should be that each country estimates the probability of the other nuclear powers launching an attack on the next turn. Bonus "population saved" points if someone is correct. In addition, each turn a nation estimates how much of their population will survive an attack in the following turn.
This link is to an old game that, IIRC, was quite fun. You might see if you can find a copy of the rules on line somewhere.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/713
I hope this helps.
How many players? Do all have nuclear capability?
How do non nuke players participate and influence the game?
Are nations single people or teams?
Your list of ways to spend money should be short and simple like you have it, but each should have some identified role in the play that either helps you win, not lose, or make others losers.
If the goal is keep your population alive, then "civil defense spending" helps you not lose, and ICBMs destroy other nations population.
Does the game end only when a nuclear war begins, or can war be avoided?
ATM I imagine a game where there is a "public" defcon track on the wall and it takes some accumulation of events, spending or points to move it up one level. At the end of each turn the mod tallies the events or spending and may or may not move the tracker. When the marker hits 5, war automatically begins and the casualites counted. Nations may attack early if they choose to end the game early and think that will put them in a winning situation.
Player diplomacy (or lack of it) and war spending will be the driver of the defcon level.
Part of each turn should be that each country estimates the probability of the other nuclear powers launching an attack on the next turn. Bonus "population saved" points if someone is correct. In addition, each turn a nation estimates how much of their population will survive an attack in the following turn.
This link is to an old game that, IIRC, was quite fun. You might see if you can find a copy of the rules on line somewhere.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/713
I hope this helps.
Bil
Prince of Space
One thing that you might want to consider (and you may have addressed this in some fashion; I'll admit I only skimmed your posts) is fallout. Part of "not losing" the game might be finding ways to ensure that you and your allies not only obliterate the enemy, and not only keep yourself from being nuked, but also to figure out ways of protecting your people from the inevitable effects of radiation sweeping across the globe as a result of your actions. Not that there's much of a way to protect against this, but still... fallout shelters, public awareness, etc. You can still die even if you win the nuclear war.
now regarding "questions" that can be added to play here is an idea.
Since players will be doing things each turn that are either spending, diplo or actions in the world, when they take diplo action or some other action (like ferment a commie revolution in Cuba) they have to find a real world analog and describe it and its consequences as part of their order submission. The time frame you choose for the game will be quite important. I suggest the 1950s to 60s, duh!
Money to spend should be tight, so players are forced to make hard decisions about whether to spend on weapons or defense or to stir up trouble around the world.
It could be a very fun game for a class. You could put teams in different places around the building and have news of world events appear on web pages or TVs.
I used to teach school, and I would have developed such a game for my students in a minute.
Since players will be doing things each turn that are either spending, diplo or actions in the world, when they take diplo action or some other action (like ferment a commie revolution in Cuba) they have to find a real world analog and describe it and its consequences as part of their order submission. The time frame you choose for the game will be quite important. I suggest the 1950s to 60s, duh!
Money to spend should be tight, so players are forced to make hard decisions about whether to spend on weapons or defense or to stir up trouble around the world.
It could be a very fun game for a class. You could put teams in different places around the building and have news of world events appear on web pages or TVs.
I used to teach school, and I would have developed such a game for my students in a minute.
Circuit
Writing Letters
Looks great to me, except that the UK is being sold a bit short there IMOV Bombers for the win!
I made up those numbers. Not scientifically generated. I have yet to figure out how many IP to give to everyone and how many armies to give...know of any good sources?
IP system:
Spoiler :
Turns are monthly, by the way.
Government:
Spoiler :
Alliances:
Spoiler :
Birdjaguar said:
Thank you for your input. The game is won/not lost by general player readiness for the inevitable nuclear war. Everyone will die in this game; you just don't want to be the one to die the hardest. So things such as fallout shelters will contribute to your non-loser points, plus how hard you are hit by the other guy (ABM systems may block the other guy's missile, but don't start thinking ABMs are how to win the game; they have pros and cons).
The number of players vary. If there are only one or two, they will be the major alliances. If there are more, the players will run the nations within their factions. Players will typically be assigned to a nuclear-armed state. Non-nuke states are a good way to get to DEFCON 1 (btw, DEFCON is countdown, so 5 is peace, 1 is war). Diplomacy with the NPCs can aggravate the situation and drive up global instability. Players will coordinate within their alliances so that the alliance as a whole comes out as a victor. Diplomacy between the alliances will probably be driven by the USA and USSR players, and will more than likely be nothing more than negative and increasing warmongering.
The spending list will be clarified, giving a better description of the weapons. I may also offer the opportunity to not just have generic ICBMs. Players may have the opportunity to buy certain models of missiles or bombers, like the V bomber or Jericho I missiles (for Israel).
DEFCON is not directly controlled by players. I set the DEFCON level, determined by player actions (invading Cuba will drive the DEFCON level closer to 1, assuredly). But it won't be global. Some loose ends, like Israel, may reach DEFCON 1 sooner than NATO and nuke Iran or something.
DEFCON levels will be the only hint I give as to the likelihood of nuclear war, other than hints dropped in the update. Players will have to determine their own risk.
The game is not just about nuking the other guy first. Players may want to buy some time to better prepare for the upcoming attack.
And irrational players might not drive up the DEFCON level. They also risk being deposed and kicked out for their reckless behavior.
Fallout is not that big of a deal, since fallout becomes more of an issue after the war. This is not a post-apocalyptic NES. It is THE APOCALYPSE as it happens. But fallout shelters will contribute to winning/not losing.
The education part...it's late, so I'll talk about it tomorrow.
Again, thanks for the input, Bil and Birdjaguar.
Thoughts on the below? You can ignore the references to other parts of the rules not shown, as this was taken directly from the unfinished ruleset I'm developing for MNES2.
Leadership Legacy Concept:
Leader name/OOC Name:
Legacy:
Succession:
In going along with the theme of trying to achieve a fun and enjoyable, yet realistic NES, the leader legacy concept will be introduced during the ITs. Instead of playing countries, you will instead actually play the leader(s) who head them and try to leave your mark on history, your legacy. This can be done in any way noticeable to history, by gathering a massive amount of wealth, or for leading a great number of wars, whether successful or not, or for constructing a grand temple. Any type of noticeable event or achievement, whether it be military, religious, diplomatic, domestic or any other event can increase your legacy. But how will you legacy stat be actually measured? A pair of persons with no investment in this NES will, after each update, award up to 5 points for 1 leader, than 4 for another, and then 3 for another etc. They can also take away 3 points, which can lead to negative legacy score, if you are a particularly bad or infamous leader. They also dont have to award all points, and maybe, because of the events in the update, choose only to award up to 3 points for leaders, or maybe just -1 for a leader. Please note that both positive and negative points can be added at any time, and a leader can only receive points only once during a single turn, you cannot receive 4 points and then -2 for example.
A leader can amass legacy points until his death, at which point he can no longer increase his legacy, and then his amount of legacy points is recorded on the scoreboard. The death of a leader is completely up to chance given no player influence (If you want to kill your leader, you can do that too). A leader can die at 5, 25, or 60, with living standards taken into account.
However, not all leaders are single persons, what about those types of governments with multiple leaders, such as councils, democracies? They gain points the same way, however, because they cannot die simply because of the death or one man, they can only die until they no longer function regularly as the governmental body of the nation it controls or no longer has the ability to reasonably regain control. Until that occurs, multiple leader governments can keep on collecting legacy points for hundreds of years. To counter-balance the longevity of governments with multiple leaders, I, as the moderator, gain certain rights with multiple leader governments that I cant have with single leaders as explained in more detail in the government section.
Underneath the legacy stat is the succession stat, which deals with, as the name indicates, the succession of your leader when he dies. Usually it includes a number of descendents and relatives, and can also include other contenders to the leadership, and in some cases, rival parties, and etc. They are listed in likeliness of actually ascending to the leadership role. This can also indicate the rough stability of your leadership; more successors generally mean more of chance for civil war. Its also important to note that players can be flexible with their leaders that they play. For example, if you were a party in a democracy, and they just got voted out, you can simply change over to the new party. Also, because the old party still has the reasonable ability to regain control, its amount of legacy points are retained, and will be shown in parenthesis next to itself on the succession stat.
Leadership Legacy Concept:
Leader name/OOC Name:
Legacy:
Succession:
In going along with the theme of trying to achieve a fun and enjoyable, yet realistic NES, the leader legacy concept will be introduced during the ITs. Instead of playing countries, you will instead actually play the leader(s) who head them and try to leave your mark on history, your legacy. This can be done in any way noticeable to history, by gathering a massive amount of wealth, or for leading a great number of wars, whether successful or not, or for constructing a grand temple. Any type of noticeable event or achievement, whether it be military, religious, diplomatic, domestic or any other event can increase your legacy. But how will you legacy stat be actually measured? A pair of persons with no investment in this NES will, after each update, award up to 5 points for 1 leader, than 4 for another, and then 3 for another etc. They can also take away 3 points, which can lead to negative legacy score, if you are a particularly bad or infamous leader. They also dont have to award all points, and maybe, because of the events in the update, choose only to award up to 3 points for leaders, or maybe just -1 for a leader. Please note that both positive and negative points can be added at any time, and a leader can only receive points only once during a single turn, you cannot receive 4 points and then -2 for example.
A leader can amass legacy points until his death, at which point he can no longer increase his legacy, and then his amount of legacy points is recorded on the scoreboard. The death of a leader is completely up to chance given no player influence (If you want to kill your leader, you can do that too). A leader can die at 5, 25, or 60, with living standards taken into account.
However, not all leaders are single persons, what about those types of governments with multiple leaders, such as councils, democracies? They gain points the same way, however, because they cannot die simply because of the death or one man, they can only die until they no longer function regularly as the governmental body of the nation it controls or no longer has the ability to reasonably regain control. Until that occurs, multiple leader governments can keep on collecting legacy points for hundreds of years. To counter-balance the longevity of governments with multiple leaders, I, as the moderator, gain certain rights with multiple leader governments that I cant have with single leaders as explained in more detail in the government section.
Underneath the legacy stat is the succession stat, which deals with, as the name indicates, the succession of your leader when he dies. Usually it includes a number of descendents and relatives, and can also include other contenders to the leadership, and in some cases, rival parties, and etc. They are listed in likeliness of actually ascending to the leadership role. This can also indicate the rough stability of your leadership; more successors generally mean more of chance for civil war. Its also important to note that players can be flexible with their leaders that they play. For example, if you were a party in a democracy, and they just got voted out, you can simply change over to the new party. Also, because the old party still has the reasonable ability to regain control, its amount of legacy points are retained, and will be shown in parenthesis next to itself on the succession stat.
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
Good job Matt008! I might play it when it is a NES.
vruchten
Found serenity in torture
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 385
interesting idea matt0088, and i`m curious how you want to organise the game when players don`t have full controll over their nation. i was thinking about this earier, because most nesses, like civ is doing it aswell, are actually giving the player the power of a super centralized planned economy, leaving all the "powers" of freemarket and democrathy to the imaginary.....
so i think i would need to mod a lot to make that limited power accuret....
ooc: dont mind me sspelling tonight... i`ve been out for a drink
so i think i would need to mod a lot to make that limited power accuret....
ooc: dont mind me sspelling tonight... i`ve been out for a drink
interesting idea matt0088, and i`m curious how you want to organise the game when players don`t have full controll over their nation. i was thinking about this earier, because most nesses, like civ is doing it aswell, are actually giving the player the power of a super centralized planned economy, leaving all the "powers" of freemarket and democrathy to the imaginary.....
so i think i would need to mod a lot to make that limited power accuret....
ooc: dont mind me sspelling tonight... i`ve been out for a drink
Well, if the player was in control of a absolute monarch, then they would have complete control, but if they were in control of a democracy, then all their action would have to be checked by me, acting as rival parties, and I could veto up to all the actions of the player. At least, that's the thought right now.
Similar threads
- Locked
