While We Wait: Part 2

[Insane_Panda]

Hilarious how you and Symph can talk of other's egos.

It takes one to know one. I have never denied that I have a great deal of self-confidence when it comes to NESing. I just hate when others attempt to attack me for it.

Edit: I am done.

 

[~Darkening~]

Wow. What illusionists you guys are- putting words in my mouth .

I don't write stories? That's pretty simple: I do, I just only do it when I have some actual inspiration, because I don't like whoring out my writing for puny little bonuses.

Show me once- once- where I said anything about you not writing stories.

So if you want to demonize me, criticize me, make me your own personal George W. Bush of NESing and project whatever you want onto me, great. I've always relished the prospect of being a villain.

Please. As important as you are to the world, you're not that important . My comments are directly in response to yours Symph. I'm not sure if you used the word, but if you dared calling my words "attacks", I beg you to go back and read your own bloody sentances. Every word you bloody say is dripping with cynicism, you always attempt to prove how 'superior' you are to other people, constantly attempt to make people feel like idiots, and just plain out worse than alex. You and Panda both. Don't dare accuse me of attacking people when you yourselfs are the biggest contributors.

What did I say that was so bad about you? That you had an ego trumped only by Panda? I have nothing but respect for your accomplishments Symph. It just annoys the hell out of me when the same outcome happens time after time. Thats what I said. You guys are the ones who evolved this conversation.

Furthermore, explain to me how NESing is not a game, and how it is not a competition. It is a competition of nations. You don't join a NES to run your country into the ground, you join a NES to successfully advance your nation.

I'm not going to repeat the whole "competitor" mindset to you again. Instead, I'll try an analogy. Think of sports terms- yo consider this to be an actual game, while I consider it more of an un-organzied freethrow. No rules, no counting points, no winners in the end. You lose, so bloody hell what. You're going to go off and cry? There are worse things in life than losing a 'game'.

And furthermore, if our orders are to be an example, Symphony and I have been far more devoted and involved in our Nations than many other players. If you look at my orders, the majority of the text is not spent on war, it is spent on domestic activities, and I went to great lengths to develop a suitable backstory and history for my Empire, and I wrote the largest amount of stories. I did not do it just to attain Best Player or Best Storywriter, I did it because I was genuinely interested in France and the HRE and I wanted to see it succeed.

Who mentioned orders?! I mean, here you go again! Who cares? Do you think people respect you less if you don't win a title? You think they respect you more? i honestly don't care about titles, honors, awards, or recognition. I appreciate it, but it means ever-so little in my conception of the player.
Yes, the empire was ever-so realistic in history .

Succeed: (v)- to win, to advance, to be successful.

I do not require other people to defend my actions.

Who dare has asked you to?

I have done things which have set my country back, tremendously, usually in terms of economic capability, in order to secure a long-term--beyond the length of the game--advantage for my country in terms of positioning. When was the last time you paid 14EP for a single EC and some surrounding territory because it made sense for one to two centuries into the future and in terms of immediate in-game economic payoff that wouldn't actually affect your EP income? Never? Oh, well, I guess you're not playing in-character.

EWhen was the last time you sabatoged yourself in order to act realistically? What? I can't hear you. When was the last bloody time I had 14 ep to spend? See Symph, thats your problem- you like to make analogies that don't work . You tend to be first rate power, while I have never attempted to play one. But, for your info, I have paid large sums for ecos. Out of a total 3 point spending limit, I gave all of it to develop a trading center in Birdnes . My entire economy- what?Wheres your high horse now?

I do not play in-character? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in most games over the sort of duration of which I'm playing, I establish the character of my nations myself, and their goal is usually their self-survival and improvement. That is most readily accomplished by elimination of enemies, and a securing of a stable position. I believe that is the general goal of most governments. If you have some evidence to the contrary that they are instead supposed to implode randomly, please feel free to present it.

*Gag*. 'Elimination'. 'Enemies'.'Long-term'. 'Most'. Please. Those are the priorities of militaristic nations . There are so many example of what could be considered 'better for stability' and nations didn't do them. Plus, again you're ignoring that the majority of history was ruled by monarchs, half of whom were most likely not the avergae Symph .

And if you think all these things regardless, great for you, because this is an activity I engage in for fun on the Internet. The opinion of anyone here--myself included--has a true value about the same as some 13 year-old kid on Live screeching insults into your ear over a game of Halo. The only reason it matters for anything is because people are willing to invest a meaning into it.

Insulting people is so much better huh?

Darkening would have (and has) leveled the same charges against me as he did you.

This whole whiny argument about how I or you or anyone else plays to win is just pissing me off, really.

And attacking people is so much better then Panda, huh? NJotice I didn't even insult you or anything, and here you go with "just because you're not as good as Symph as NESing." i'd consider than an attack.

Like I said, how can you even open your own mouth?

EDIT: . Shock. You want to attack people Panda but you don't want the facts shoved back in your own face.

 

[Kal'thzar]

The responsibility of bringing the cold, roiling waves of reality crashing down upon the lofty ambitions of players is the responsibility of the moderator. If vast tracts of land of a totally different culture should fall and not a peep should be heard, then either the player is extremely efficient at counterinsurgency, or more likely, the moderator is not explicating the situation realistically.

Or, to put it another way: don't hate the playa', hate the game.

bingo sympth. The problem is with the game, and I'd actually blame the ruleset, the moderaters tools are not exactly that well developed to handle a more realistic world.

I have yet to see a naval assualt that has failed in its totalitly, not gained even a sliver of land. Additionally attacking is generally the best policy, your first strike is going to guarantee you land in the enemy's nation, usually with ec's. Thus you gain and they lose out.

*mutter*

So; who'd like to brainstorm on actualy NEW ways to rule?

 

[Symphony D.]

Insulting people is so much better huh?

You expect a discussion where sides refuse to acknowledge each others points' or budge an inch to go any other way?

"Where's the rest?"

I'm writing this entire subject line off as being pointless. I could continue. I could sit here and we could talk each other into the dirt until doomsday. That has been demonstrated sufficiently in quantity in this thread previously.

But you know what? You're right. I'm just going to leave all those points hanging, much as I could reply to them since I have half of my responses typed up. I do have better things to do than engage in the intellectual equivalent of Vietnam--than to "win" this stupid discussion.

So you may freely believe... whatever you want to believe. That's all people really want to do anyway. Who am I to change your mind? Respond to this however you want, or don't; I am going to go enjoy the sunshine. You will not get a reply.

So; who'd like to brainstorm on actualy NEW ways to rule?

You won't find many takers. Rule set discussion has a bad tendency to die here. Thinking is too hard, apparently.

 

[Insane_Panda]

I guess I'm not done.

I'm not going to repeat the whole "competitor" mindset to you again. Instead, I'll try an analogy. Think of sports terms- yo consider this to be an actual game, while I consider it more of an un-organzied freethrow. No rules, no counting points, no winners in the end. You lose, so bloody hell what. You're going to go off and cry? There are worse things in life than losing a 'game'.

No, I am not going to cry. I have far more important things going on in my life, NESing is just a hobby. But it is a hobby that I enjoy to do well at.

Show me once- once- where I said anything about you not writing stories.

The difference I can see in you and most people you named Symph is that unlike you, we actually work with the story. Not everything is a game.

Not the same thing, admitedly, but you essentially are accusing that he works outside the story when he has infact contributed far more to it than you.

You want to attack people Panda but you don't want the facts shoved back in your own face.

What facts? What is being shoved in my face other than your angsty rants?

If your example is so great to follow, then play in character. However, do not disparage me for the way I play or those who play in a similar style. That just reveals your underlying self-confidence issues, and your vain attempts at elevating yourself above everyone with your false rationalizations.

This time I am truly done.

 

[Thlayli]

Um, what are you guys talking about? Seriously, this whole discussion is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Israelite9191]

Well, yes, but that involves a rather extended alt-history. Most of Das' ones which became NESes all happened between the 16th-19th centuries, where history had already advanced to a degree that China would not surpass Europe.

Actually, it's to a point where Europe will almost certainly overcome China. Up to that point China dominated Europe by far.

I would love to see an asian centered alt-historical NES, but no need to disparage the wonderful NESes which das has run.

Not disparaging, just pointing out little innacuracies.

The point remains some regions are good at naturally supporting strong powers and others are very bad at it.

Not disagreeing with that, just sayin that Western Europe, North America, and Russia aren't the only suitable reasons, no matter what the NES forum tends to think.

Madagascar happens to be one of the very bad ones.

Very, very true.

Some people here love cannons or pointy-sticks and will gladly defend them to the death. Some people here like taking the helm of a historical power. People who do one and thumb their nose at the other simply smack of hypocrisy. Personal taste. No accounting for it. Might not like it, but that doesn't mean there isn't some reason to it.

Probably the most agreeable thing I've ever heard you say.

EDIT: Although I still say that (Earth based) Fresh Starts are the pinacle of NESing and Cradles are inherently inferior to anything else.

 

[Thlayli]

In the end, people have different attitudes and playstyles, and you can't really criticize them for having different opinions on what NESing should or should not be. That's why the opportunity to mod, and join or not join those games, is open to everyone.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So; who'd like to brainstorm on actualy NEW ways to rule?

That might be fun. What time period interests you and to what level of detail would you like the rules to go?

 

[Disenfrancised]

I have yet to see a naval assualt that has failed in its totalitly, not gained even a sliver of land.

DisNES2: Holy Roman Empire landed 20-30 thousand troops on the mouth of the seine and were defeated utterly by about 10 thousand french troops (because silver had prepared the ground very well, admittedly because he was expecting a english assualt rather than a german one, but the attacker would have needed 6:1 odds at least to secure ground.)

ctually, it's to a point where Europe will almost certainly overcome China. Up to that point China dominated Europe by far.

Europes strength vs china actually started in the 13th century, the thing to look for is growth rates rather than absolute terms. Sure china was amtching europe in the 16th century, with double the population and a thousand years of head start.

Not disagreeing with that, just sayin that Western Europe, North America, and Russia aren't the only suitable reasons, no matter what the NES forum tends to think

They are the best regions for easy (western style) industralisation, there are very few regions elsewhere that come remotely close to their effectiveness for purely geographic reasons.

 

[Kal'thzar]

well its getting a bit late for me.

But at the moment; I'd like to start with something theoretically easier; so medevial, classical age type of stuff.

And the rules, I'd like to go into suffciient detail over giving the mod ample tools to dictate how to get a state to collapse from over-extension etc. Also an ability to get the point accross that wars are expensive, don't result in the massive gains made in NES's.

I felt your military rules were a step in the correct direction, mercs that disappear at the end of the turn, and you modeled wars better, but I'm not sure if that can be attributed to the longer time period for such wars (5 years).

 

[Birdjaguar]

well its getting a bit late for me.

But at the moment; I'd like to start with something theoretically easier; so medevial, classical age type of stuff.

And the rules, I'd like to go into suffciient detail over giving the mod ample tools to dictate how to get a state to collapse from over-extension etc. Also an ability to get the point accross that wars are expensive, don't result in the massive gains made in NES's.

I felt your military rules were a step in the correct direction, mercs that disappear at the end of the turn, and you modeled wars better, but I'm not sure if that can be attributed to the longer time period for such wars (5 years).

I made some conscious decisions in BirdNES: Territory would be hard to gain in a 5 year turn and wars would be expensive and wreck an economy if prolonged for more than a couple of turns. Then I built sthe rules and stats to make that possible.

A five year turn for wars is pretty long. Few nations could support active warfare for very long prior to 19th C. So in my updates, I usually stop the wars aftger a few years and let the players decide how to conintue. It is a little fakey, but I haven't figured out a better way yet.

If you decide the game effects you want first, then it is easier to write rules that carry those out. If you want rapid expansion of borders to trigger potential collapse over some time frame, then you have to somehow tie size growth to economic instability. That then becomes just a stats formula (if size = x2 then civil leadership = -2 and national confidence =-2.)

The game effects you want get translated into spending, costs or other stats; that is why you have to start there first.

 

[Israelite9191]

The solution to all of the rules is for Mods to actually exercise their power. If Mods were to state, explicitly, that the rules are flexible and made to be bent for realism, then there would be many fewer problems.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The solution to all of the rules is for Mods to actually exercise their power. If Mods were to state, explicitly, that the rules are flexible and made to be bent for realism, then there would be many fewer problems.

I agree completely. In BirdNES, Abaddon wanted a way to "conquer" all of S. America and Africa in two turns and I just had to write the update so they failed and then explain to him that that model of expansion was not going to work in the more realistic world portrayed in the NES. Abaddon now sends more realistic orders.

 

[fantasmo]

I made some conscious decisions in BirdNES: Territory would be hard to gain in a 5 year turn and wars would be expensive and wreck an economy if prolonged for more than a couple of turns. Then I built sthe rules and stats to make that possible.

*Grumbles about various wars ruining the Austrian economy* Hurry up and update, you lazy slob.

I like detailed, realistic rules, which I suspect is one reason why modern NESes consistently fail to satisfy me. GDP-style economy is all well and good, but I want bizarre amounts of detail in my economy, damnit. BirdNES, while not satisfying my inner economist, has delightfully realistic and detailed rules. Hence, it's my favourite NES ever.


Plus, I have yet to suffer any truly crushing defeats in BirdNES.

 

[Birdjaguar]

*Grumbles about various wars ruining the Austrian economy* Hurry up and update, you lazy slob.

Update? I thought we were still in the diplo stage.

I like detailed, realistic rules, which I suspect is one reason why modern NESes consistently fail to satisfy me. GDP-style economy is all well and good, but I want bizarre amounts of detail in my economy, damnit. BirdNES, while not satisfying my inner economist, has delightfully realistic and detailed rules. Hence, it's my favourite NES ever.


Plus, I have yet to suffer any truly crushing defeats in BirdNES.

Thank you; **then rushes to change the target of Poland's extraterritorial efforts**

 

[Israelite9191]

Yes, the BirdNES rules are very nice and inventive. There are a few things I don't particularly like, specifically the use of trade routes (those went out about a year ago in favor of eco centers) and the colony rules (which are much too complicated for my tastes).

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes, the BirdNES rules are very nice and inventive. There are a few things I don't particularly like, specifically the use of trade routes (those went out about a year ago in favor of eco centers) and the colony rules (which are much too complicated for my tastes).

All of the BirdNES rules are really just a work in progress. They are a test for future improvements. The trade route rules are broken and need fixing. The colony rules are an attempt to create a better simulation of colonies and how they were used economically. I hope someone will find a way to make them simpler and better. I have some new rules for Symphony's "nation" that I'm testing this update that may get explained after the update gets posted. (likely this weekend).

 

[Israelite9191]

Based on my own previous experience, I would just drop trade routes immediately and add a couple ECs, where appropriate, to make up for them. As for colonies, I like my own version which is basically the exact opposite of yours in terms of complication, though I think it simulates their function relatively well (though they are somewhat better suited for Ancient Age colonies than Age of Discovery colonies).

 

[Insane_Panda]

I thought DisNES rules the most realistic in terms of colonies, or atleast in terms of colonies along an industrial age model. Colonies had their own income, and it was up to colonial powers to determine the taxation/resource extraction. However, the NES sadly died