Summer means fun and freetime..

[Drake Rlugia]

So, as I sit here typing, my last day of school winds down to nothing. That means more free time I can use for NESing, mainly, I want to start an NES. I have a few ideas, but I am open to suggestions.

1816: I figure reactionary upholdings, revolts in America and such would make for a good game. I might also add in some Weltpoltik stuff, as it seemed successful.

Alt-hist: Map and story, and I'd be willing to start one.

Late 19th Century: Anywhere from 1880s to 1890s I'd be willing to do an NES, namely as Azale didn't revive his 1898 one.

But yeah. Like I said, I am open for suggestions and ideas.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Anything you want Drake!

 

[das]

1816! I had great plans for the one SB had started a while ago, but he killed it too quickly. Although with all due honesty, perhaps 1825 will be a better date, as 1816 is still an era of calming down, whereas by 1825 proper chaos could erupt. Especially if any of my three schemes (not sure which I will choose this time yet) succeed at least marginally.

 

[Drake Rlugia]

Yes, perhaps 1825, to be honest, I find the American continent too painted with color in 1816. 1825 still has lots of stuff anyways, so it's all good.

 

[das]

I find the American continent too painted with color in 1816.

Hmm? Although yes, it was quite confusing. By 1825 things settled down more, but there still were lots of interesting things going on. Just from a quick look on a timeline, Bolivia split off from Peru for the first time, whereas Argentina and Brazil begun a war over Uruguay. In Europe, domestic tensions grew, Greek War of Independence entered a decisive stage, Alexander I died and the Decembrist rising took place... et cetera, and that's just the more-or-less major events.

 

[andis-1]

Late 19th Century.

 

[Stormbringer]

I tired an 1816 NES once, and since there are no major conflicts to begin with everyone lost interest very quickly, and after 2-3 turns I was getting no more than 2 orders a turn. If you do start one in the 1800's either make it earlier (Napoleon still around) or later (Italian unification and the like)

 

[Dachs]

Hey, andis, why are you described as a "tactical genius"? You lost big...

 

[andis-1]

Hey, andis, why are you described as a "tactical genius"? You lost big...

I wanted to describe myself as "tactical genious, strategic disaster" but it didn't fit in, so I removed the strategic part

 

[das]

I tired an 1816 NES once, and since there are no major conflicts to begin with everyone lost interest very quickly, and after 2-3 turns I was getting no more than 2 orders a turn. If you do start one in the 1800's either make it earlier (Napoleon still around) or later (Italian unification and the like)

I did point out the date of 1825. By then things begun heating up, but are far from decided, which is what makes for interesting NESing.

 

[andis-1]

gah! Why are everybody so interested in 19th century? Warfare sucks for as long as there are muskets...

late 19th would be much better, when infantry weapons and artillery would be more advanced.

 

[das]

Warfare sucks for as long as there are muskets...

No it doesn't. Not necessarily, anyway. Towards the late 19th century cavalry lost much significance, and warfare became more static; which, ofcourse, has a certain appeal, but so do the early 19th century's more mobile ways.

 

[Symphony D.]

The only reason warfare in the latter half of the 19th and early 20th centuries is regarded as static is because of the WWI. Several campaigns within that, such as the initial German execution of the Schlifen Plan, Tannenburg, and the closing stages of the war, as well as prior to then (Sedan, Omdurman, Colenso) showed a high degree of mobility.

It's just that when both sides are equal, the only solution is to dig in. Then you get your trenches and static warfare.

I would agree though, that as long as muskets were the chief means of delivering death, warfare sucks. Lining men up in long lines, not seeking cover, following time-honored methods of battle dating back to the Middle Ages and so forth, is simply ********. You only start seeing sense gradually shocked into commanders as rifles come into play. It started during the American Civil War and took all the way until the end of WWI for most personnel of any note to realize technology had destroyed the old ways, though.

Anyway, point being, muskets suck, line formations suck, and in any early 19th century NES, whoever picks up rifles and uses a more guerilla-type warfare first (think Morgan's Sharpshooters) will wreck bloody terror on their opponents. Free advice in case that option somehow gets picked.

Of the available options I'd have to say Late 19th Century, though there are some neato alt-hists floating around in the Alternate History II thread...

 

[ThomAnder]

Ok, what about a middle ages nes modded by me? I'm thinking europe 1200 since nobody would play in asia and i don't want to manage a bunch of NPC's?

I would vote for 1825 btw

 

[das]

Problem is, the elimination of cavalry as a viable force and the introduction of such large-scale mobilization as seen in the WWI doomed warfare to staticness. Still don't agree with you about muskets and the rest; as for the "time-honored methods of battle dating back to the Middle Ages", IMHO you way overstate this, unless you are using the Soviet definition of the Middle Ages ofcourse.

Even then, early 19th century is much richer in divergences than late 19th century, if, ofcourse, we look at it realistically.

 

[ThomAnder]

Staticness will also promote mobility again though, no? (referring to infiltration... blitzkrieg etc)

 

[Symphony D.]

It's rather simple: you just mount a machine-gun to a horse using a special harness.

And I might note, even without Cavalry, the opening and closing stages of WWI were highly mobile. Witness the French army saving Paris by commandering its taxi fleet. Cavalry being obsolete did not doom the Western Front to stagnation - the lack of German forces did. When two equally forces collide, the result is a stalemate, and given the lethality of "modern" technology, the logical answer is to dig in. Had the Germans not undercommitted, they could have overwhelmed the French in fairly rapid order, then redirected their attention to the Eastern Front, and WWI would have effectively wound up a minor shuffling of borders.

Furthermore, the decline of Cavalry, which began around the American Civil War, did not reduce the German Wars of Unification to stalemate. Nor did it do similar to the Boer Wars, or the Crimean War, or many of the other conflicts of the latter half of the 19th Century. It only occurs as a significant factor in WWI. For this, you can blame Hiram Maxim and his wonderful little infernal machine. Gattlings were simply not the killer Machineguns were, merely a foreshadow.

And no, I feel I do not overstate the ridiculousness of methods used earlier in that century. Lining troops up is partly a hold-over from ye olde days and partly to maximize potential firepower from horribly inaccurate muskets by delivering it in volleys. You march these lines at one another and whoever has more nerve or men (or both) wins. It is needlessly wasteful, and frankly stupid - as well as a inherent flaw of the smoothbore musket. Certainly, the having of battles at arranged times and places was gone, but the utter waste of human lives in Medieval-type slugging matches carried on, and continued to do so in some fashion or another until the end of WWI, due to the inflexibility of doctrine. The technology is quite simply boring. It makes fighting a war in 1815 very little different from fighting one in 1715 or 1650.

Finally, the divergent abilities of a given time period are mostly irrelevent to how a NES might play out anyway. Players are quite willing to - and do - take a given scenario and manipulate it to their own ends, realism be damned. You of all people should know this.

 

[Drake Rlugia]

Lovely how my topic has become a breeding ground for discussing tactics.

But anyways. I think I'll go with 1825. There is unrest in Russia, the Greeks are chaffing under the Turkish yoke, America is still interesting with Uruguay and Bolivia, not to mention, Spain has to be plotting. Plus, France and the Netherlands aren't exactly happy, you've got the Belgians and Liberals, of course!

With a little creativity, tons can happen, just in 1825.

 

[andis-1]

Lovely how my topic has become a breeding ground for discussing tactics.

But anyways. I think I'll go with 1825. There is unrest in Russia, the Greeks are chaffing under the Turkish yoke, America is still interesting with Uruguay and Bolivia, not to mention, Spain has to be plotting. Plus, France and the Netherlands aren't exactly happy, you've got the Belgians and Liberals, of course!

With a little creativity, tons can happen, just in 1825.

so when do you plan to start this? I would like to have paraguay.

 

[Drake Rlugia]

In a few days, possibly a week. I need to make a map and get rules made up. Shouldn't take too long.