New NESes, ideas, development, etc
- Thread starter das
- Start date
nutranurse
Unlikeliest of Slash Fics
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2009
- Messages
- 2,077
Spoiler :
Here is the Update 0/Starting map for the NES I am working on.
The beginning scenario is that the players will be playing the aforementioned immortals residing in the city of Aros while virtually every other city-state is an enemy of Aros due to their significant advantage of having such mythical figures in their midsts.
The Immortals come from far to the south, having landed some 100 years ago when most of the cities were just little villages. The thing I like about having the players be immortal Greek-style heroes is that I can have the turns range form 1 year to 15 if I wish. It also means I'll not have to constantly worry about switching out characters!
nutranurse
Unlikeliest of Slash Fics
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2009
- Messages
- 2,077
Spoiler :
Well, here's what I have after taking your advice FC.
Daftpanzer
canonically ambiguous
@nutranurse long live the civ2 sprites! I like the first map best 
flyingchicken may have a point, now that he's pointed that out. Otherwise I like it. I wouldn't consider the cities too important, though. I think the main thing is finding a format you can manipulate easily without excessive amounts of fiddling around...
RE: my game idea. Yes the various icons are cities, nomad camps, fortresses, temples/monuments, wonders, ports, slave camps, merchants/workers, centres of trade, religious centres, and so on. There would be an icon key and descriptions of these in the rules of course. Only a few of these things would be buildable directly, and all for the same price (2'e'). They are also quite abstract, like a 'city' could actually represent several small towns or one big city. A unit of settled population, basically.
@Thlayli that would ruin all the game mechanics, so I'm afraid this won't cater for your tastes
If we have normal territorial borders then yes we need everything to have exact fixed positions, which would mean using several different maps to avoid things overlapping and being totally indecipherable, unless the army icons or resources are scrapped and turned into stats. It then becomes a normal NES with all the same problems for me.
For example, in DaftNES2 I have found that trying to have realistic city placement, growth, density etc over the course of each turn has been an unpleasant and time-consuming experience. How could anyone possibly do that realistically, anyway? I ended up juggling many hundreds of those icons, and often it hasn't had much relevance for the game at all, besides giving the players what I thought they want to see. It all distils down to population density, which I believe can be shown in a much simpler way, especially if there are fewer icons overall and they all relate to your income directly. The observer can then make up his or her own mind about what the map actually represents on a higher level (or is that a lower level
), while I can get on with running the game instead of trying to simulate all aspects of geohistory!
Really, I think the less specific I get about things, the more freedom there is for things to possibly fit into a realistic picture, and the various definitions thereof. Why should I expend the time if you can have all your details relevant to the game in a much more concise way? I think the important thing is that I will still be taking all the important behind-the-scenes variables into account, on the level where I can do that best, which is pretty abstract.
Then in this concept there's the large time scales of the early turns, and the fact that most factions/polities are not very centralised anyway. One's faction might actually be a collection of different kingdoms and city states, which can only barely function as a single faction when you look at it from a more abstract level over the course of decades and centuries. Your real 'borders' would be blurry patchworks and blobs anyway.
Is this making any sense lolconfused.
@BananaLee I've come to the conclusion I don't want to do any more ZPNESes. If I'm going to spend time, and ask others to spend time, it will be a thing of great justice. From now on there are only fully-fledged DaftNESes
@Abaddon thanks for the resources! I had been trawling the civ3 creation forums but not found much I could use, besides things I already found in the civ3/conquests art folders.
Yes in my idea the different colours represent different terrain types (trees and hills and things are there to reinforce that). If you totally pwn a territory and are undisputed ruler then you get your team colour around it, which gives you more influence in the surroundings and makes it a little harder for enemies to invade or influence you there.
flyingchicken may have a point, now that he's pointed that out. Otherwise I like it. I wouldn't consider the cities too important, though. I think the main thing is finding a format you can manipulate easily without excessive amounts of fiddling around...RE: my game idea. Yes the various icons are cities, nomad camps, fortresses, temples/monuments, wonders, ports, slave camps, merchants/workers, centres of trade, religious centres, and so on. There would be an icon key and descriptions of these in the rules of course. Only a few of these things would be buildable directly, and all for the same price (2'e'). They are also quite abstract, like a 'city' could actually represent several small towns or one big city. A unit of settled population, basically.
Thlayli said:
@Thlayli that would ruin all the game mechanics, so I'm afraid this won't cater for your tastes
If we have normal territorial borders then yes we need everything to have exact fixed positions, which would mean using several different maps to avoid things overlapping and being totally indecipherable, unless the army icons or resources are scrapped and turned into stats. It then becomes a normal NES with all the same problems for me.For example, in DaftNES2 I have found that trying to have realistic city placement, growth, density etc over the course of each turn has been an unpleasant and time-consuming experience. How could anyone possibly do that realistically, anyway? I ended up juggling many hundreds of those icons, and often it hasn't had much relevance for the game at all, besides giving the players what I thought they want to see. It all distils down to population density, which I believe can be shown in a much simpler way, especially if there are fewer icons overall and they all relate to your income directly. The observer can then make up his or her own mind about what the map actually represents on a higher level (or is that a lower level
), while I can get on with running the game instead of trying to simulate all aspects of geohistory!Really, I think the less specific I get about things, the more freedom there is for things to possibly fit into a realistic picture, and the various definitions thereof. Why should I expend the time if you can have all your details relevant to the game in a much more concise way? I think the important thing is that I will still be taking all the important behind-the-scenes variables into account, on the level where I can do that best, which is pretty abstract.
Then in this concept there's the large time scales of the early turns, and the fact that most factions/polities are not very centralised anyway. One's faction might actually be a collection of different kingdoms and city states, which can only barely function as a single faction when you look at it from a more abstract level over the course of decades and centuries. Your real 'borders' would be blurry patchworks and blobs anyway.
Is this making any sense lol
confused.BananaLee said:
@BananaLee I've come to the conclusion I don't want to do any more ZPNESes. If I'm going to spend time, and ask others to spend time, it will be a thing of great justice. From now on there are only fully-fledged DaftNESes
Border thickness= percentage of power you have in that
block?
Different shades of blocks mean anything? General terrain?
Can I offer up my resources?
@Abaddon thanks for the resources! I had been trawling the civ3 creation forums but not found much I could use, besides things I already found in the civ3/conquests art folders.
Yes in my idea the different colours represent different terrain types (trees and hills and things are there to reinforce that). If you totally pwn a territory and are undisputed ruler then you get your team colour around it, which gives you more influence in the surroundings and makes it a little harder for enemies to invade or influence you there.
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
Your logic has swayed me, oh Tank-like One.
@BananaLee I've come to the conclusion I don't want to do any more ZPNESes. If I'm going to spend time, and ask others to spend time, it will be a thing of great justice. From now on there are only fully-fledged DaftNESes
But then, WHAT'S THE POINT!? Oh.. wait...
Daftpanzer
canonically ambiguous
@Thlayli you really mean you don't wish to discuss it further? I may have been getting defensive there, which I realise is not helpful when we are talking about exchanging ideas and opinions freely etc.
@flyingchicken that sounds interesting but, people actually pay for these things?
Lets make a collective NES ruleset and market it on the internet! Cool idea or what?
I may have been getting defensive there, which I realise is not helpful when we are talking about exchanging ideas and opinions freely etc.@flyingchicken that sounds interesting but, people actually pay for these things?
Lets make a collective NES ruleset and market it on the internet! Cool idea or what?
Daftpanzer
canonically ambiguous
Hmm maybe this weekend if I get it organised (but you know what I'm like with deadlines lol).
Daftpanzer
canonically ambiguous
Daftpanzer
canonically ambiguous
I resent you, Daft, for doing some things that I've thought up (mainly the resource-worked-by-anyone in a territory thing, partly the "everything is a faction" paradigm)!Anyway, I know how difficult it is to get little icons remain intelligible without cluttering things up (I've tried), but I still dislike the artstyle of the map.
Now I feel that all my good ideas have been invalidated because someone beat me to the punch.
Hey you can just learn from all my mistakes and do it better
We are all one consciousness on a higher level.
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
Edit: Ha, getting the 5000!
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
Do people think they'd be able wrap their head around a space NES that actually features 3D space, albeit in a limited form? I was thinking of having one where you have systems in space, and ships jump directly from system to system with the freedom to pick anywhere they want to go - though longer distances take longer to 'jump'. It'd be implimented as a 3D plot and a travel time chart:
3D map of space, awesome graphics pending
Travel times chart, in turns taken to get from one system to the next. The numbers aren't quite right at the moment, but you get the idea.
Note this is functionally equilivant to an old-style network map that has every node connected to every other node. The number of systems would obviously be adjusted to the number of players.
The aim of this would be to produce a smaller level of systems but with more freedom for players to interact (no bottlenecks and blockades and more fluid alliances), allowing a focus on the intra-system level of play that has so far been unexplored in NESing.
A system map for Tau Ceti.
Thus I'd make cute little system maps like these, which would form the main place of play. Here you can see the system of Tau Ceti has 4 planets (the doubled bar indicates the last Icy planet is a moon of Tau Ceti IV), each planet of which has a number of features. The Dicchus Imperium is heavily established at TCIII, with bases in two of the Mars like planets possible 4 slots, an impressive gamma class city and a beta class settlement, whilst two Trident Class destroyers orbit watchfully overhead. The Imperium also has an alpha class base on one of the airless inner planets, possibly intending to expand into a mining settlement though it currently lacks civilian population. The Penguin Combine also have a small presence in the system on the Ice moon of IV, where a scoutship has probably stopped off for supplies. The base has a full population, but it is doubtful the Imperium will allow the Combine to take one of the remaining slots on III, and the Scoutship certainly won't be up to the task of forcing the issue, so further population growth will have to be on the icy moon or wait till the homeworld sends sufficent supplies to expand the current base.
Thoughts?
Stuff I'm also seeking opinions on:
-There might be planet based units as well, haven't decided yet.
-There will also have to be an economic system that encourages competition and conflict, and severe limitations to technology trading.
-Toying with the idea of player designed ships from component lists, as long as player realise there will be significant limits on the total number of designs they make to have things be managable still for the mod.
3D map of space, awesome graphics pending
Travel times chart, in turns taken to get from one system to the next. The numbers aren't quite right at the moment, but you get the idea.
Note this is functionally equilivant to an old-style network map that has every node connected to every other node. The number of systems would obviously be adjusted to the number of players.
The aim of this would be to produce a smaller level of systems but with more freedom for players to interact (no bottlenecks and blockades and more fluid alliances), allowing a focus on the intra-system level of play that has so far been unexplored in NESing.
A system map for Tau Ceti.
Thus I'd make cute little system maps like these, which would form the main place of play. Here you can see the system of Tau Ceti has 4 planets (the doubled bar indicates the last Icy planet is a moon of Tau Ceti IV), each planet of which has a number of features. The Dicchus Imperium is heavily established at TCIII, with bases in two of the Mars like planets possible 4 slots, an impressive gamma class city and a beta class settlement, whilst two Trident Class destroyers orbit watchfully overhead. The Imperium also has an alpha class base on one of the airless inner planets, possibly intending to expand into a mining settlement though it currently lacks civilian population. The Penguin Combine also have a small presence in the system on the Ice moon of IV, where a scoutship has probably stopped off for supplies. The base has a full population, but it is doubtful the Imperium will allow the Combine to take one of the remaining slots on III, and the Scoutship certainly won't be up to the task of forcing the issue, so further population growth will have to be on the icy moon or wait till the homeworld sends sufficent supplies to expand the current base.
Thoughts?
Stuff I'm also seeking opinions on:
-There might be planet based units as well, haven't decided yet.
-There will also have to be an economic system that encourages competition and conflict, and severe limitations to technology trading.
-Toying with the idea of player designed ships from component lists, as long as player realise there will be significant limits on the total number of designs they make to have things be managable still for the mod.
Dreadnought
Deity
I like the setup there. One thing, though: it seems like a lot of work is required if you are doing every system map and planets and such. Its a considerable work load.
Bil
Prince of Space
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be willing to give a 3D space NES a go.
I think that planet-based units would be cool. Are you considering it in terms of the planets having maps (broken into regions?), or just generalizing it and saying, "Yes, there are 4 [whatevers] here"? If you think you'd be willing to add that much more work to the game, I think it'd be a good idea overall.
Player-designed ships are cool, but like you said, players might get carried away. A generic rule for limiting custom designs would be fair, I think, as long as there is also a decent amount of "generic" classes that can be chosen from. That is, if you're looking for that sort of detail (which it seems like you might be).
I think that planet-based units would be cool. Are you considering it in terms of the planets having maps (broken into regions?), or just generalizing it and saying, "Yes, there are 4 [whatevers] here"? If you think you'd be willing to add that much more work to the game, I think it'd be a good idea overall.
Player-designed ships are cool, but like you said, players might get carried away. A generic rule for limiting custom designs would be fair, I think, as long as there is also a decent amount of "generic" classes that can be chosen from. That is, if you're looking for that sort of detail (which it seems like you might be).
As far as a 3D map and related distances and time to travel between each star, all of that was perfectly easy to comprehend.
The star system map is a bit confusing, and better distinguishing what is a moon to which planet would be nice(I noticed the double bar only on the second look through). Otherwise, the slots and related material I would think, become more clear by looking at the rules.
For planet based units, how detailed they may be really depends on how much activity you would want on the planets, Dis. For Pre-ChaNES, a successful space NES in my opinion despite issues with setting, only generic divisions for each planet were shown, with a military description, much like AFSNES, and quite honestly, they worked without a hitch, and military action seemed detailed and satisfactory.
Anything encouraging competition and conflict are a GO, especially if players start with overwhelmingly developed homeworlds.
Limiting the total number of designs is necessary of course, but I'd really need to know more about designing ships from a list of components before commenting. Will you be limited on how many components you can use/have? How would that affect the size of the designs? Price? Are the components themselves built be a playable entity?
The star system map is a bit confusing, and better distinguishing what is a moon to which planet would be nice(I noticed the double bar only on the second look through). Otherwise, the slots and related material I would think, become more clear by looking at the rules.
For planet based units, how detailed they may be really depends on how much activity you would want on the planets, Dis. For Pre-ChaNES, a successful space NES in my opinion despite issues with setting, only generic divisions for each planet were shown, with a military description, much like AFSNES, and quite honestly, they worked without a hitch, and military action seemed detailed and satisfactory.
Anything encouraging competition and conflict are a GO, especially if players start with overwhelmingly developed homeworlds.
Limiting the total number of designs is necessary of course, but I'd really need to know more about designing ships from a list of components before commenting. Will you be limited on how many components you can use/have? How would that affect the size of the designs? Price? Are the components themselves built be a playable entity?
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
Making the maps will not be difficult, I will randomly generate systems (and reuse planet art) at the start. And copy pasting ship sprites and base letters shouldn't take too long depending on number of players.
Yes the plan is to have X abstract 'regions' per planet, as a map view would be more work and would require more than just the simple globe rule. You'd be able to attack any abstract region from any other, and the planetary conditions would not vary between them. The units would just be little pixel tanks and defence platforms on the planets themselves.
As for ships I was thinking of having 'prototypes' be seriously expensive (ala Alpha Centauri), but a hard limit of 'design slots' might work also (as in the game STARS!).
Yes the plan is to have X abstract 'regions' per planet, as a map view would be more work and would require more than just the simple globe rule. You'd be able to attack any abstract region from any other, and the planetary conditions would not vary between them. The units would just be little pixel tanks and defence platforms on the planets themselves.
As for ships I was thinking of having 'prototypes' be seriously expensive (ala Alpha Centauri), but a hard limit of 'design slots' might work also (as in the game STARS!).
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
And in the second month of that year, the era of stale game mechanics came to an end with the return of the Dis...
Very nice. I have little of import to say besides wondering how you intend to manage 'jump' lanes in the realm of space combat. If two ships cross paths en route to opposite systems, would they have the opportunity to interact or not?
Very nice. I have little of import to say besides wondering how you intend to manage 'jump' lanes in the realm of space combat. If two ships cross paths en route to opposite systems, would they have the opportunity to interact or not?
Similar threads
- Locked
