New NESes, ideas, development, etc

[spryllino]

Rome had no functional walls, if I remember rightly.

 

[1stcitizen]

He would try to draw the forces out of Rome, I doubt he would actually march on the city itself without a larger force, which never arrived.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Metaurus

 

[Terrance888]

The Persians had camp at marathon, the Athenians also prepared their positions with palisades.

However, the Athenians attacked when parts of the Persians are still disembarking(if I read correctld/remembered right) and when the Persians routed from the double flanks, they ran into some disembarking and full troops ships will the empty ones were oaring away.

 

[mgsmuhammad]

He would try to draw the forces out of Rome, I doubt he would actually march on the city itself without a larger force, which never arrived.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Metaurus

Mm..

What was Hasdrubal thinking?

Uncoded messages?! Why?!

 

[GoodGame]

How about an American Civil War NES that is very generous on the What-Ifs?


E.g. What If the Prussians became involved and von Dreyse shipped over some Needle guns to the highest bidder?

E.g. What if Maryland seceded, provoked by suspension of a writ of habeus corpus?


And focused on the officers and general strategy mainly?

 

[GoodGame]

Are there any transcripts of good officer-centric and battle-focused NESes?

I'm still thinking of a North vs. South Industrial-Era, Civil War NES.


Core Idea:

1. Half the players represent 1 army/navy, half the opposing army/navy.
2. Each player is an officer in the chain of command. Some officers could be irregulars (jayhawks, Mosby's raiders). Some could even be spies/saboteurs.
3. Each player controls forces underneath them, generally brigades.
4. Main campaign orders and situation will be per GM caveat. The players just have to try to do the
best with the hand they're given.
5. Each officer is defined by role-playing game "perks" "skills" etc.. that can be bought throughout the campaign by various mean (experience, resource purchases).

Would emphasize missives, tactical detail, and operational detail. Would de-emphasize strategic resource gathering; resources would come semi-randomly outside of player control (e.g released from the civilian government and by GM caveat/random effects). Would emphasize management of tactical resources (hoarding would be possible, but GM caveat might cause resources to be reallocated outside of the players' command).


Comments, ideas, suggestions (other than "Play more NESes before you GM")?



Development goals:
Research more (more readings) to establish a list of plausible officer traits/perks.
Refine game rules.
Need a nicely detailed map-board to contest (North American, or imaginary?).

 

[Birdjaguar]

IIRC there was one a few years ago that was either WW2 or Napoleonic. I think it lasted a turn or two.

 

[Anonymoose]

Idea:
In a massive asylum, all hell has broken loose. After a catastrophic flood, electricity has gone out, and the staff can't leave until the proper authorities arrive to reinforce security. Flood waters start pouring into the grounds, and seep into the basement. The backup generator goes out, and the electronically controlled doors are all opened. BAMM! Crazy people everywhere, sounds like a fun NES to me. Somebody do it.

 

[mgsmuhammad]

And, in the end, you realize you are the crazies!

 

[GoodGame]

Will you have to share dreams with the crazies, or just shoot them?

 

[GoodGame]

Thought up a few fresh twists.

Some of the gaming burden is on the GM to decide how the civil governments will act in the war, which might be challenging. Especially having to sim two opposing civil governments fighting on at least one front (and several fronts if you consider the ACW was East and West, Riverine and coastal blockade). Also, it might be more interesting to make the players participate in that simming.

Resulting idea: About every turn, each player contributes one sentence describing some aspect of the opposing civil government's updated strategy, internal condition, or response to stimuli, etc.. That relieves the GM of extra work, and can also realistically portray an inefficient/inept civil government.

Second idea: have the players all act for one side only and play against some automata that the GM designs. E.g. the players might all be confeds, and the GM plays the union by some semi-random ruleset/AI system.



EDIT: More thoughts. "Declaration of Secession" All players shall contribute to the mad lib that is their nation's "reason for being". e.g. http://www.rinkworks.com/crazylibs/c/c20.shtml

and political addresses like this one: http://www.oodora.com/life-stories/funny-finds/mad-libs-for-president.html

Are there any transcripts of good officer-centric and battle-focused NESes?

I'm still thinking of a North vs. South Industrial-Era, Civil War NES.


Core Idea:

1. Half the players represent 1 army/navy, half the opposing army/navy.
2. Each player is an officer in the chain of command. Some officers could be irregulars (jayhawks, Mosby's raiders). Some could even be spies/saboteurs.
3. Each player controls forces underneath them, generally brigades.
4. Main campaign orders and situation will be per GM caveat. The players just have to try to do the
best with the hand they're given.
5. Each officer is defined by role-playing game "perks" "skills" etc.. that can be bought throughout the campaign by various mean (experience, resource purchases).

Would emphasize missives, tactical detail, and operational detail. Would de-emphasize strategic resource gathering; resources would come semi-randomly outside of player control (e.g released from the civilian government and by GM caveat/random effects). Would emphasize management of tactical resources (hoarding would be possible, but GM caveat might cause resources to be reallocated outside of the players' command).


Comments, ideas, suggestions (other than "Play more NESes before you GM")?



Development goals:
Research more (more readings) to establish a list of plausible officer traits/perks.
Refine game rules.
Need a nicely detailed map-board to contest (North American, or imaginary?).

And a couple more ideas:

1. The campaign is played in rounds. Each round is themed around one side of the war (rebels or unionists) and lasts one week (to simulate 1 month of the war). All players play together on the same side for the round, creating one officer or recontinuing the one the created previously.

2. As the rounds progress and the players alternate sides in the war, the players will actually face against the officers they created. That way every officer in the game was player created, making them a little more "real".

3. At the start of the round, the dominant player (highest scoring) holds a council of war with the other players to decide the grand strategy for the round.

4. The round progresses in mini-feedback sessions that simulate days of the war.


And more thoughts about communication/missives. Message speed is important in a war where telegraph systems are the most modern means of communication as they are linear and vulnerable to interdiction. Message speed and accuracy is also important since the majority of the forces are foot marchers, such that a day of misdirected marching can be critical (e.g. plenty of times in the civil war or in Napoleon's Waterloo where a critically needed troop mis-marched and therefore failed to take part in battle or was critically delayed).

The secondary message system is by horseback, which is fast, but nowhere near as instanteous as telegraph. Net effect is that the farther one is away from the capital or the direct messenger system, the slower requests can be relayed and acted upon. That'll require some GM oversight to disrupt any meta-gaming of players' officers communicating at email speed instead of at horse/telegraph speed.

 

[Heraclius49]

i not so sure about this. I personally would enjoy staying with one side the whole time. It gives a greater sense of control and progress.

This rounds idea may also cause a conflict of interest, where a player would not want to win a battle because his own officer is his enemy.

The original ideas you have are pretty good and will work. I think Germanicus12 did a NES very similar to this. you could find it a few pages back in the forums (4 i think)

 

[Terrance888]

The south lost due to lack of fire. My troops did fine tho!

Anyone wants a nes based on Daft's alternate timeline Experiment? A real nes with troops, EP, treachury, alliances, war and stories!

 

[GoodGame]

Anyone done a Left-4-Dead NES where everyone is a zombie?

 

[Lord of Elves]

The south lost due to lack of fire. My troops did fine tho!

Anyone wants a nes based on Daft's alternate timeline Experiment? A real nes with troops, EP, treachury, alliances, war and stories!

That's always good.

 

[Angst]

The south lost due to lack of fire. My troops did fine tho!

Anyone wants a nes based on Daft's alternate timeline Experiment? A real nes with troops, EP, treachury, alliances, war and stories!

That sounds pretty interesting, actually. People did suggest that some time ago.

 

[1stcitizen]

The south lost due to lack of fire. My troops did fine tho!

Anyone wants a nes based on Daft's alternate timeline Experiment? A real nes with troops, EP, treachury, alliances, war and stories!

That would be refreshing.

 

[Shadowbound]

ShadowNES
Mystery Men​

I've been trying to get a character-driven, story-based NES set up for awhile now. The idea is that a bunch of pre-Superman heroes (like The Shadow, Nyctalope, the Green Hornet, the Spider) take on a city controlled by Prohibition-era crime lords.

There would be ~10 players, a near-equal number of crime lords and masked vigilantes. The number would be controlled through an application process, where players can submit seperate applications for Crime Lords and Vigilantes, but can only play as one. Vigilantes would be similar to the example heroes: no real extranormal abilities. But cool gadgets, costumes, and lots of badassery. Crime Lords would be the head of a mob, and rivals to other Crime lords.

Both vigilantes and crime lords would, in their applications, would be judged on three categories. Plausibility, which is how much their break the semi-realism of the game, Character, how interesting they are as a concept, and Detail, the amount of effort put into creating them.

The city would be divided into neighborhoods, which have stats. Each neighborhood would have a description, income level, corruption level, and major vices, and percentage controlled by each mob.

The corruption level is the amount of control Crime has over it. At 100%, the police are completely in the pocket of the gangs, the entire territory's income is divided between the controlling mobs, and superheroes can count on next-to-no support from the local population. Superheroes would reduce corruption by reducing the number of goons in the neighborhood, and removing corrupted public officials.

Major vices are fluff, but describe the type of crime that goes on there. Income level would affect major vices, as prostitution and extortion wouldn't be as common in a High Income neighborhood as Kick-backs.

Mobs are close to normal NES nations. They get an income, which comes from their vice operations in neighborhoods (the total income of the neighborhood/divided by the corruption level/divided again by the percentage of crime they control) which they spend on goons, corrupt cops, and hitmen.

• Goons are thugs, they go down by droves but are cheap and can do a little of everything.
• Corrupt Cops are crooked police officers in the payroll of the mob. They're more expensive, but good at keeping corruption level high, and superheroes can't take them out the old-fashioned way without losing reputation.
• Hitmen have one job, and that's taking people out. Like vigilantes. Like heroes, they have a chance to evade.

In each neighborhood they set up hideouts, which are a center for their branch of crime there. They have an upkeep, which determines the level of detective skills needed to find it.

Superheroes have a few stats. At creation, they distribute nine points between Prowess, Detection, and Evasion. Each stat needs at least one point. No stat can be higher than five.

• Prowess is fighting ability. A superhero with high prowess can wipe the floor with goons and hitmen that come his way, though he'd be overwhelmed by large numbers.
• Detection is detective skills. A superhero with high detection can find hidden hideouts easier, and dig up evidence of corruption that he can turn over to the police. Detection can also be used to tell him just how many henchmen he'd have to fight. Unlike evasion and prowess, this doesn't make him harder to injure.
• Evasion is ability to evade detection. A superhero with high evasion can avoid tough fights much easier, and whittle down large groups of henchmen through hit-and-run tactics.

They also have a reputation stat. It starts out at zero, and can go higher or lower. It will go up when the hero exposes corruption, takes down henchmen, and breaks up hideouts. It will go lower when they use lethal force (though, if this takes down a henchman, it'll be a net gain), and do other bad things that aren't exactly in the rules. A bad reputation can be a good thing, as a hero known for using lethal force will terrify henchmen more than one who just gives them a solid beating and puts them in jail.

A single crime lord and his goons would be more than a match for a hero, at the start. Even a hero with a prowess of 4 couldn't be expected to take on a dozen goons in a straight-up fight. They're just one man. But vigilantes can strike without warning and disappear without a trace, and whittle down a crime lord's income and influence until they can be beaten.

Combat !NEW!
Combat is handled, principally, between henchmen and vigilantes. Each vigilante has two stats that matter in combat: prowess and evasion. Henchmen have a prowess value equal to the number of minions in a group, with matching evasion values if they are hitmen. Groups of minions can't be larger than five, if there are more than five henchmen then a new group is created. If a henchman is solo, he has a value of two (but still only takes a single hit to knock out).

In combat, the vigilante goes first. He rolls a number of dice equal to his prowess, and every matching set of numbers is a hit. Each hit eliminates a henchman from the fight. If the henchmen have an evasion value, they can use that to try and negate the hit by rolling a number of dice equal to their evasion. If they have any matches, they eliminate a single die for each match from one of the vigilante's matching sets, negating that attack unless it was a matching set of three or more.

The henchmen then attack, with a number of dice equal to their (remaining) members. The hero, like the henchmen, has a chance to evade.

If there are multiple heroes or groups of henchmen, they make seperate attacks. The member of the group that is attacked is decided randomly.

If a henchman group is hit, one of its members is eliminated. If a hero is hit, they lose a die from one of their statistics (determined randomly).

 

[Abaddon]

Sounds sweet, an im sure you'd get a nice mix of people wanting to play baddies as well as goodies!

 

[mgsmuhammad]

I'd definitely play that.