The Next NES by EQandCivfanatic

[Lord_Iggy]

I think the main issues with the ABNW ruleset are:

An economic system which provides only two ways of economic improvement- difficult to control update events, and extremely inefficient massive investment. I think it would be better if, in the future, you introduced more ways to improve the economy, to provide some variety.

A stability system which is a slap on the wrist for large powers, crippling for small nations, and has very little to do with how you actually treat your people. Your proposed ruleset seems to fix this nicely.

A monolithic technology system. I think that a better tech tree would have several price modifiers. The total price of a technology would decrease on a roughly hyperbolic curve as more and more nations researched a technology, so that while tiny nations could independently keep up with technology. While still remaining some distance behind the cutting edge, they wouldn't be ridiculously far behind because even simple technologies would take 15 turns of their entire economy to research. Other price decreases could be achieved from being a close trading partner with a technology-possessor, industrial espionage, and the like.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Generally I'd argue the ripoffs arent as good as the original. In a way, you can kind of say that's what the whole change does to any kind of unit. We'll see how it goes though. At the moment I'm working out the changes. I'm thinking that some people are going to be nastily surprised tomorrow morning when they look at ABNW and see everything completely different.

 

[bombshoo]

Generally I'd argue the ripoffs arent as good as the original. In a way, you can kind of say that's what the whole change does to any kind of unit. We'll see how it goes though. At the moment I'm working out the changes. I'm thinking that some people are going to be nastily surprised tomorrow morning when they look at ABNW and see everything completely different.

Oh man...I can't wait.

 

[Justo]

I agree that the economic system while good in some ways is bad in another way. As the UCNA I have no incentive to invest the roughly 60 EP to increase my economy. It will take 60 years for me to make a profit and in that time chances are ABNW will no longer be around.

I've changed my mind on stability slightly. IMO however stability should have more of an impact toward economical development. Nations will low stability should struggle to have economic growth. Also stability for a small nation should not cost the same as stability for a large nation. A nation with 1 million people should not have to pay the same to maintain their nation as a nation with 100 million people. Modeling stability however is quite difficult.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Thanks for the constructive criticism so far folks. My current pllan is to cannibalize the tech tree post in favor of usign that for design listings and the like. That way it'll be much easier for me to keep track of them. Overall though, it's not much more complicatedd than maintaining the tech tree is. Some elements of the tree will remain intact as I had previously planned with this ruleset (i.e. poison gas and nuclear weapons and technology) but I'm fairly certain this could dramatically change the way the game is played and perhaps make a independent course actually feasible.

@Justo, my problem with your idea is that during the course of 6 years in WW2, tanks underwent frequent and dramatic design changes across the world. I feel that it's up to the players to design their weapons, and therefore they can pay a design fee of 20 EP to get their fancy new tanks or planes. They can name them and even tell me what they emphasize. We'll keep track of them all on the former tech tree post.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

I agree that the economic system while good in some ways is bad in another way. As the UCNA I have no incentive to invest that roughly 60 EP to increase my economy. It will take 60 years for me to make a profit and in that time chances are ABNW will no longer be around.

I've changed my mind on stability slightly. IMO however stability should have more of an impact toward economical development. Nations will low stability should struggle to have economic growth. Also stability for a small nation should not cost the same as stability for a large nation. A nation with 1 million people should not have to pay the same to maintain their nation as a nation with 100 million people. Modeling stability however is quite difficult.

Well I think this way will work, the economic growth method is supposed to be secondary to projects and global market changes. The 1.5 method is really for small countries and those who really have nothing else to do with their EP.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Here's the full lowdown draft of the changes to techs:


Essentially techs will now be researched as several different fields as in Imperial Glory. THese fields will be Army, Naval, Aeronautics, Rocketry, Industrial, and Scientific. You can spend into any section and whenever you reach 100 EP spent into a field, you get a new tech. This way (eventually) all nations will contribute to tech and we won't be 100% reliant on the Bear to do the world's research. If someone "beats" you to something, you won't lose the money you put in, but it'll keep on going to whatever tech comes next andd so on.

As stated before, with the technical skills you have, you can design new tanks/planes/ships based on the technology available. These willl be included in orders, with emphasis on what you design focuses on. Each new design will cost 20 EP, which MUST be paid in a single turn and cannot be paid for over time. This is done to reduce the amount of designs which will likely appear and once again, make it so the tiny countries have to buy from the rich.


Thoughts on this?

 

[bombshoo]

Here's the full lowdown draft of the changes to techs:


Essentially techs will now be researched as several different fields as in Imperial Glory. THese fields will be Army, Naval, Aeronautics, Rocketry, Industrial, and Scientific. You can spend into any section and whenever you reach 100 EP spent into a field, you get a new tech. This way (eventually) all nations will contribute to tech and we won't be 100% reliant on the Bear to do the world's research. If someone "beats" you to something, you won't lose the money you put in, but it'll keep on going to whatever tech comes next andd so on.

As stated before, with the technical skills you have, you can design new tanks/planes/ships based on the technology available. These willl be included in orders, with emphasis on what you design focuses on. Each new design will cost 20 EP, which MUST be paid in a single turn and cannot be paid for over time. This is done to reduce the amount of designs which will likely appear and once again, make it so the tiny countries have to buy from the rich.


Thoughts on this?

Couldn't this still lead to small countries being the first to research horribly advanced techs? Say Russia puts 100 EP into Aeronautics and researches some kind bombers, the next turn Kurdistan puts in their final payment towards the 100. Won't they get the next tech up and be the first to finish say Heavy Bombers?

I'm fine with the second part, though 20 EP still seems alittle steep. That would mean a large country like New England has to use half their income for a single turn to research a tank. Though I understand why its like this, that still seems problematic and will lead to little-to-no development during expensive wars when there really should be more development. Also can multiple countries contribute to the development of a single unit?

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

No worries, just thought of a way to solve that. During mobilization, design costs are halved.


Yes, that would happen once in a while, but not with the example you lsited. Basically I'm making the tech tree more and more specific. Broad techs are gone, things like "improved elevation sights" are in, though that's likely a bad example. A better one would be "washers and dryers" as a industrial tech which is researched, then a small nation comes out with air conditioning. Sometimes small countries contribute to science too.

 

[bombshoo]

No worries, just thought of a way to solve that. During mobilization, design costs are halved.


Yes, that would happen once in a while, but not with the example you lsited. Basically I'm making the tech tree more and more specific. Broad techs are gone, things like "improved elevation sights" are in, though that's likely a bad example. A better one would be "washers and dryers" as a industrial tech which is researched, then a small nation comes out with air conditioning. Sometimes small countries contribute to science too.

Okay that works. And I agree, small nations do contribute to science sometimes, they just tend to do it in areas where it is useful for mostly themselves. Perhaps if the next tech on the list is something that isn't beneficial to them at all (meaning its real life likelihood of being developed there is low) they get something else, even if it is just a better version of a previous tech.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

yes, I've thought of that, and this makes it much easier for me to moderate the tech advancement of the NES to fit the situation.

 

[Justo]

I like the proposed tech change. It will be quite interesting to see things develop. It will once again truly be A Brave New World.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Throwing another question out there: what about the colony stat? It's occured to me I coudl put that in ABNW now too, even though it's really for reference. It'll mean slightly redoing the map and longer stats, but hell, doing everything else, so why not that too?

 

[bombshoo]

Throwing another question out there: what about the colony stat? It's occured to me I coudl put that in ABNW now too, even though it's really for reference. It'll mean slightly redoing the map and longer stats, but hell, doing everything else, so why not that too?

It doesn't affect me directly but I think it is quite useful. It makes stats longer though so hopefully that doesn't tear down update speed. I recommend pushing orders back a day or two to give people a chance to get acquainted with the changes as well. Why would the map need redone just curious?

 

[germanicus12]

These seem like good changes, it was the old rule set that caught up with me and my time limits on the internet. Who knows with the new rules I may finally be able to rejoin, provided I feel I can get in my orders fairly easily with the new rules.

 

[Kentharu]

I foresee problems where nations intentionally wait for others to do the bulk of the research for them and then finish it of and get first place while not having invested anything at all. It seems like a ridiculously easy system to break and abuse.

The idea of technological proliferation is evident within current and previous (1800-now) examples. Scientific breakthroughs were mainly circulated through scholarly journals, where scientists would publish their findings. In terms of military techs I cannot see this being applicable at all. The only way military designs would be shared would be intentionally between governments. Do not misunderstand me in saying that after the advent of the tank governments simply shared this technology with everyone. However the idea of creating a tank, and the basic principles (big metal box with treads shooting shells) can be very easily gleaned. However tank specs were closely guarded secrets (as were all other military technologies).

The point I'm trying to make is that after the first tank came about, and everyone saw they idea they caught on, and some of the baby steps towards that tech would have been moved out of the way. In other words, after a nation first discovers any tech the costs of researching that tech are reduced drastically. For some things like industrial techs, which are, in most cases, not controlled by the government, they would spread easily. Things like the first planes, which would not have been intentionally used for military purposes, would spread rapidly. However as soon as one applies any technology for military purposes the spread of that technology is drastically halted.

I'm half asleep though so none of this probably makes sense.

*passes out*

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

@Kentharu: Well, all weapons would have to be independently designed by players, not distributed to EVERYONE for production. That'll prevent weapons theft and so forth unless approvedd off by the designing player.

@bombshoo: The map is just taking some slight redoing with colonial borders. It doesnt make a game difference, it'll just mark the different colonies, particularly in Africa and Indonesia.

 

[Justo]

I like the idea of separate colony stats although it doesn't directly effect me.

I'm eager to see the finalization of the new technology rules.

 

[Masada]

You know you want to make allowances for rebel group

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

I'll consider it masada. It's just that some people have abused such organizations in the past, and therefore I'm hesitant allowing it again.