While We Wait: Part 3

[Luckymoose]

I love how mods don't exhist here. Its ridiculus but the current conv would get a modsmack anywhere else

Not to jinx it but we are the elite and the elite never get punished.

 

[das]

Shh. Don't mention them in here; you might draw their attention and then everything is lost!

 

[Luckymoose]

They only use the search function to find us. If we don't say anything vulgar we are safe.

Seriously we are hidden in the Civ 3 Stories and Tales.

 

[Abaddon]

Wondering, does this post make sence, and who predicts the idea (Of extra Ep) will work as apposed to being a disasterous mistake?

The next turn is going to be very special, since everyone will have an extra 10EP to spend.

The turn is going to span 100 years.

You must have at least 3 different leaders during this time, with each one spending at least 2EP

Orders will be ignored unless set out as below:


Stats:
Nation Name: Beijing // gandhi rules
Capital : Beijing
Leader : Xiang Xung Xing
Government Type: Monarchy/ Dictature
Economy (A/I/T) 9(3/3/3)
Trade Partners: LIST ALL YOUR TRADE PARTNERS
Army : 14
Navy : 1 (2 River)
Infrastructure : Barely Acceptable
Population : 1
Size: 2
Confidence : Resentful
Culture : Poor
Religion: none
Advances : Ceremonial Burial (DONE)
Wonders : Terracotta Army (3/4)

Goals: INCLUDE A GOAL FOR EACH LEADER
Emperor Xiang Xung Xong: Finish His Fathers Grave.
Emperor Xiang Xung Zung: Build a road.
Emperor Xiang Xung Xassious: More stuff
Emperor Zalaman Rexium: Other stuff

Title each leadership like this: NAME/SPENDING/DURATION
Ruler: Emperor Xiang Xung Xong , Spending 9, Years 1-51
Set out each cost like this: COST: LABEL: DESCRIPTION
2EP: Military: Build 10 army units (More detail from you obviously)
3EP: "City Improvement" etc.

Ruler: Emperor Xiang Xung Zung, Spending 4, Years 51-60
2EP Infastructure. etc.
continue until 100 years is up

 

[Luckymoose]

I much prefer the list format of.

1.) Build 50 ships (40>35) 5 EP: (0>50 Ships)

 

[North King]

Just to check the water, is there any interest here in an ancient (Early Iron Age) historical NES at some later point?

Heck yes. How much of the world?

I'm very keen on making this as historical as I could.

I may have a few suggestions on that count, though I'm probably going to be posting them later on anyway. In particular, I'm thinking of focusing on economy, technology, trade, government, and loyalty.

I'm going to try and see if I could do without it. And yes, the ruleset is going to be very different, so as to keep this from being a pure war game (which partly made that system necessary in the first place).

Good news.

Just a world map seems more feasible, especially since I'm going to be adding new areas. Which world map would be a more interesting question.

I'm going to second the notion of using one of Symphony's world maps; I prefer my style for obvious reasons. I am hoping, though, that he will come out with his city maps soon, which will make nation placement much more exact.

Multiple PC factions? Sure, why not. Stats? Not in particular, except perhaps very rudimentary and as part of the nation stats.

I fully support multiple factions to a nation. I think you could use a loyalty stat, indicating the level of support each person has in a nation. The main loyalty value, of course, is for the king, but other significant factions can be represented...

One thing that I do intend to have is a province and vassal state system, with playable vassal states (duh, that's how the Achaemenid Empire came about).

Interesting. How detailed were you going to make the province system? I've been thinking recently that stats for individual provinces may be a good idea, in order to show where economy and infrastructure is most concentrated.

I'm also planning to redo the Trade system, complete with key resources.

I'm also thinking of doing the same thing. Again, thoughts will be posted soon, probably later this week, to be exact.

If one NESer had left NESing forever, which one would you miss the most?

I'd probably miss Iggy the most.

Not to jinx it but we are the elite and the elite never get punished.

Heh. I think someone's in for a rude surprise.

 

[LittleBoots]

Shh. Don't mention them in here; you might draw their attention and then everything is lost!

Damn the fools! Now we will have to make the proper sacrifices... and then kill the uninitiated...

 

[das]

Heck yes. How much of the world?

Start with the Middle East and then add some other places as I go, though probably no New World (as it always ends up needlessly distractive).

I may have a few suggestions on that count, though I'm probably going to be posting them later on anyway. In particular, I'm thinking of focusing on economy, technology, trade, government, and loyalty.

By all means do (though I've decided to move the discussion to the appropriate thread)!

I fully support multiple factions to a nation. I think you could use a loyalty stat, indicating the level of support each person has in a nation. The main loyalty value, of course, is for the king, but other significant factions can be represented...

I am not sure if I understand how those factions should be implemented. Care to give some example?

Interesting. How detailed were you going to make the province system? I've been thinking recently that stats for individual provinces may be a good idea, in order to show where economy and infrastructure is most concentrated.

Economy (obviously including Resources, and possibly Taxation if I find a good way to implement it) and Infrastructure are obvious, and I think that it might be best to split some of the Culture in this way. Might also have regional levy quotas and provincial rulers (possibly PC-able, so as to give people the joy of being Tissaphernes).

 

[Chandrasekhar]

On that note, considering it's much more logical for an Air Force to be the originator of space warfare than a Navy, I've always found it weird that most Sci-Fi has continued to stick with Naval terminology and concepts when addressing the idea of space forces. The only major exception I'm aware of is Stargate SG-1. I suppose a lot of it is much more convenient, but a lot of it's superfluous too. Interesting note to people doing thing with space settings somewhere to consider.

Oh, this is directed at me, isn't it? Anyway, space warfare more closely resembles naval warfare than aerial warfare, in my opinion. It might have three dimensions, but the craft tend to be considerably more similar to naval ones, in that rather than flying for short periods during battle and then landing, they tend to spend the vast majority of their time cruising through their preferred medium. The point on which type of armed forces originates space warfare is a valid one, but who's to say that an Air Force wouldn't pick up Naval terminology when moving into a medium that more closely resembles the naval one?

Also, if that argument fails to persuade, naval terminology is cool.

 

[Luckymoose]

Space tanks would balance it out.

 

[North King]

Start with the Middle East and then add some other places as I go, though probably no New World (as it always ends up needlessly distractive).

Unfortunately true on the New World point.

I am not sure if I understand how those factions should be implemented. Care to give some example?

Well, you'd have a line in the stats looking something like this:

Hellas
...
Loyalty: 23% (Prince Xenophon: 54%, Bulgaria: 23%)
... etc.

This would mean that loyalty to the current government would be about 23% of the population. His greatest domestic rival, Prince Xenophon, commands a lot more supporters, with 54%. Say they also have a minority of Bulgars: a large portion of these men are loyal to their home nation more than Hellas itself.

Now, in this example, with such a low loyalty level, Xenophon may decide the time is right to begin a rebellion. At the same time, the Bulgars see their chance and rebel. With attacks from Bulgaria proper and the Prince, the King's government falls; the PC in charge of him is replaced by the PC in charge of Xenophon.

Unfortunately, there's a moral dilemma buried in this idea. For example:

In principle, for a democratic system, it should be really easy to implement different factions. Every election year, the vote comes up, and the faction that wins in whatever system used, is then the ruler of the nation.

However, you get into a nasty cesspit at this point. Say this has been the first losing election by the main player's candidate in multiple turns. He's built up his nation from the ground, leading it through thick and thin. Just to make this a more troublesome example, say that he's written a lot of stories, is incredibly active, etc., etc. Can you really justify removing him from his position?

Then you get a nastier question still. Say no one's leading the opposition; it's an NPC faction. The player's government took a turn for the worse, now his rival's in power. No one wants to take over this position, and as a consequence of this, you're obligated to remove a player in favor of -- no one.

And it's even worse outside of a non-democratic system. How do you determine the occurrences of coups d'etat? How do you figure out when a leader is assassinated? Moreover, in the regular succession, should you replace a player with another to represent the different policies of his successors?

Then you have one of the biggest problems of all: player number. It's most viable to do this in the ancient or medieval eras, of course, since the number of nations is far lower. Yet you still have the problem of low numbers here, especially if you want to implement a new ruler for every succession. All of the players would have to be dedicated, roleplaying, and very communicative with other players.

I could see it done if it were a very restricted cradle, but not otherwise...

I'm only keeping this part in this thread, because I think all NESers ought to see and criticize these ideas before a mod implements them.

Economy (obviously including Resources, and possibly Taxation if I find a good way to implement it) and Infrastructure are obvious, and I think that it might be best to split some of the Culture in this way. Might also have regional levy quotas and provincial rulers (possibly PC-able, so as to give people the joy of being Tissaphernes).

Hmm. Actually, I hadn't thought of Culture and regional rulers. However, the latter would suffer from the problems with numbers mentioned above.

 

[Symphony D.]

but who's to say that an Air Force wouldn't pick up Naval terminology when moving into a medium that more closely resembles the naval one?

Actually it wasn't. But anyone in the Air Force or Navy, considering in almost every country they're rivals and generally (nearly) hate each other.

 

[Luckymoose]

You know how 50 years ago everyone though the world of right now would have space traveling? The Air Force should have huge carriers that can go into space and back into the atmosphere anywhere in the world by now.

I blame the democrats.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Actually it wasn't. But anyone in the Air Force or Navy, considering in almost every country they're rivals and generally (nearly) hate each other.

The the obvious solution is to steal the other's terminology in order to thumb your nose at them, eh, eh? Bah, I'm grasping at straws here, but my coolness argument remains undefeated.

That said, is there any Air Force terminology that would be more applicable than Naval terminology to space combat, or would new terminology have to be invented?

 

[das]

Well, you'd have a line in the stats looking something like this:

Hellas
...
Loyalty: 23% (Prince Xenophon: 54%, Bulgaria: 23%)
... etc.

This would mean that loyalty to the current government would be about 23% of the population. His greatest domestic rival, Prince Xenophon, commands a lot more supporters, with 54%. Say they also have a minority of Bulgars: a large portion of these men are loyal to their home nation more than Hellas itself.

Now, in this example, with such a low loyalty level, Xenophon may decide the time is right to begin a rebellion. At the same time, the Bulgars see their chance and rebel. With attacks from Bulgaria proper and the Prince, the King's government falls; the PC in charge of him is replaced by the PC in charge of Xenophon.

Unfortunately, there's a moral dilemma buried in this idea. For example:

In principle, for a democratic system, it should be really easy to implement different factions. Every election year, the vote comes up, and the faction that wins in whatever system used, is then the ruler of the nation.

However, you get into a nasty cesspit at this point. Say this has been the first losing election by the main player's candidate in multiple turns. He's built up his nation from the ground, leading it through thick and thin. Just to make this a more troublesome example, say that he's written a lot of stories, is incredibly active, etc., etc. Can you really justify removing him from his position?

Then you get a nastier question still. Say no one's leading the opposition; it's an NPC faction. The player's government took a turn for the worse, now his rival's in power. No one wants to take over this position, and as a consequence of this, you're obligated to remove a player in favor of -- no one.

And it's even worse outside of a non-democratic system. How do you determine the occurrences of coups d'etat? How do you figure out when a leader is assassinated? Moreover, in the regular succession, should you replace a player with another to represent the different policies of his successors?

Then you have one of the biggest problems of all: player number. It's most viable to do this in the ancient or medieval eras, of course, since the number of nations is far lower. Yet you still have the problem of low numbers here, especially if you want to implement a new ruler for every succession. All of the players would have to be dedicated, roleplaying, and very communicative with other players.

I could see it done if it were a very restricted cradle, but not otherwise...

I'm only keeping this part in this thread, because I think all NESers ought to see and criticize these ideas before a mod implements them.

I have some other points of disagreement as well. Firstly, the Bulgars appear to be simply a discontent minority (rather than an actual government faction; at most they might have a rebel movement amongst them, but that should definitely be hidden - I'll get back to that last bit later), while Prince Xenophon basically looks like a person-driven faction. That's not strictly impossible, but in the long run looks fairly irrelevant, and it must be remembered that all such opponents inevitably had to ally with someone, usually with the traditional aristocracy. That's where we get to my second objection, which is that the key internal conflicts may be narrowed down to those between the military-bureaucratic aristocracy (or plain old bureaucracy) and the traditional aristocracy, with the commoners and/or various minorities being sometimes evoked by extreme circumstances and/or charismatic leaders that did not ally with the traditional aristocracy. Ofcourse, it can get more tricky than that; in a large empire there are multiple sets of traditional aristocracies; and if either set of elites is predominant disagreements usually grow within it (conflicts between different clans in the case of traditional aristocracy, and conflicts between different ideological factions and kinds of bureaucrats as particularly well-observed in China). Still, I think that this kind of factionalism ultimately makes more sense - within the stats, at least.

My third objection partly stems from that. While above I have mentioned examples of obvious "surface" factions, those tend to be quite passive, and indeed there comes every now and then some leader or perhaps a conspiracy of leaders that would want to overthrow the present government. But I think it is simply wrong to put any of those in the stats, and senseless to give them a clear approval rating as well (much better to keep this as ambiguous as possible when this is doable). Sure, someone could start something like that, and then he could work with the other factions and groups and whatnot. But there probably will be no such NPC factions; a particularly senseless ruler could be just as easily overthrown by a plain old aristocratic conspiracy and replaced with a puppet that the player could then pick up again. That solution, I think, makes the most historical sense.

Hmm. Actually, I hadn't thought of Culture and regional rulers. However, the latter would suffer from the problems with numbers mentioned above.

Well, hopefully there won't be so many provinces, and it's not as though those couldn't be safely NPCed. Besides, when an empire has enough space for many provinces, that will usually mean that it has steamrolled a lot of people first, driving many into either collaboration or conspiracy, or perhaps both.

But yes, I suppose that the best I could do is hope for my reputation to draw in more players.

 

[North King]

I have some other points of disagreement as well. Firstly, the Bulgars appear to be simply a discontent minority (rather than an actual government faction; at most they might have a rebel movement amongst them, but that should definitely be hidden - I'll get back to that last bit later), while Prince Xenophon basically looks like a person-driven faction. That's not strictly impossible, but in the long run looks fairly irrelevant, and it must be remembered that all such opponents inevitably had to ally with someone, usually with the traditional aristocracy. That's where we get to my second objection, which is that the key internal conflicts may be narrowed down to those between the military-bureaucratic aristocracy (or plain old bureaucracy) and the traditional aristocracy, with the commoners and/or various minorities being sometimes evoked by extreme circumstances and/or charismatic leaders that did not ally with the traditional aristocracy. Ofcourse, it can get more tricky than that; in a large empire there are multiple sets of traditional aristocracies; and if either set of elites is predominant disagreements usually grow within it (conflicts between different clans in the case of traditional aristocracy, and conflicts between different ideological factions and kinds of bureaucrats as particularly well-observed in China). Still, I think that this kind of factionalism ultimately makes more sense - within the stats, at least.

My third objection partly stems from that. While above I have mentioned examples of obvious "surface" factions, those tend to be quite passive, and indeed there comes every now and then some leader or perhaps a conspiracy of leaders that would want to overthrow the present government. But I think it is simply wrong to put any of those in the stats, and senseless to give them a clear approval rating as well (much better to keep this as ambiguous as possible when this is doable). Sure, someone could start something like that, and then he could work with the other factions and groups and whatnot. But there probably will be no such NPC factions; a particularly senseless ruler could be just as easily overthrown by a plain old aristocratic conspiracy and replaced with a puppet that the player could then pick up again. That solution, I think, makes the most historical sense.

Thanks for the reply.

The Bulgars, for their part, would be commanding the loyalty of a fair amount of the populace/local nobility, which is essentially what the loyalty stat would be measuring. They probably should be hidden, or simply not counted at all, as they would have no loyalty to the main nation or factions therein -- in that, you are correct.

Person driven factions are, I think, probably the most numerous and likely through most of history. You are correct that they have to get a considerable support from the aristocracy or clergy most of the time -- but that's exactly what the loyalty stat would be measuring.

I'm not entirely certain what your second objection is to; can you clarify that?

The approval rating makes more sense in a modern setting, I'll admit. And some factions ought to be more clearly hidden. However, I think the system is still good, in theory. If your loyalty bottoms out, then your people will either rebel or overthrow you. Other people may command noticeable support, which should be noted in the stats.

In any case, it would give more weight to domestic conflicts.

What do you think about replacing players as a matter of succession?

Well, hopefully there won't be so many provinces, and it's not as though those couldn't be safely NPCed. Besides, when an empire has enough space for many provinces, that will usually mean that it has steamrolled a lot of people first, driving many into either collaboration or conspiracy, or perhaps both.

True enough.

But yes, I suppose that the best I could do is hope for my reputation to draw in more players.

You certainly could, though I was hoping to work out a system viable for all mods.

 

[das]

I'm not entirely certain what your second objection is to; can you clarify that?

I suppose it was a bit tangential; still, my point was that the larger and more obvious societal factions are the ones that ought to be actually in the stats, rather than the more specific conspiracies, groups and individuals maneuvering for power right now.

However, I think the system is still good, in theory. If your loyalty bottoms out, then your people will either rebel or overthrow you. Other people may command noticeable support, which should be noted in the stats.

I do agree on the former part, but not on the latter. Even though secrecy does not always apply, I don't think that these permutations are really worth mentioning in the stats. It is practically norm for there to be a large amount of people at the court that wouldn't mind taking the power for themselves, and usually they would not even be worth the mention. For them to be worth mention, they would usually either have to actually take power or at least launch some major rebellion (incidentally, might want to make some rebellion-specific stats; anyway, my point is that this much would naturally be reflected); if they attain great popularity or notoriety or whatever, but fall short of that, then I think a mention in the update and/or in secret reports should be quite enough.

So to sum up, a system of "public" factions and the freedom to conspire in relative secrecy. I'm just afraid that not many people will bother with the latter option, which, I suppose, is the main argument in favour of your proposed system. Then again, that isn't supposed to happen successfully very often.

What do you think about replacing players as a matter of succession?

I suppose it's a nice idea, but having said that I must add that this is madness. I don't think that we could make it work right now or any time soon, not in a regular type NES as opposed to a one-nation NES or somesuch.

You certainly could, though I was hoping to work out a system viable for all mods.

Well, it's pretty much a given that for a NES to be truly successful they would have to get a large number of players somehow.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

I suppose it's a nice idea, but having said that I must add that this is madness. I don't think that we could make it work right now or any time soon, not in a regular type NES as opposed to a one-nation NES or somesuch.

It would encourage more self-preservation.

 

[Symphony D.]

That said, is there any Air Force terminology that would be more applicable than Naval terminology to space combat, or would new terminology have to be invented?

A lot of the aviation stuff is interchangeable, because it's effectively the same. So, as das suggested, a lot of small stuff would go under Air Force headings, probably, though they're much the same as Navy (Fighter, Bomber, Attack, Tanker, so on). Medium size stuff can be swung either way (Gunship is just as good as Corvette and Frigate to be quite honest). Really big stuff would probably borrow from Navy terminology (Carrier, Battleship, so on).

In terms of actual ranks and slang, Air Force would probably dominate, because again, it would go first, and it'd be a sort of new tradition. The only really huge difference in ranks is Admiral vs. General and Captain vs. Colonel, which is just a perception thing, I think. Enlisted and so on are of course different between the services but it's no big deal as you'd need to alter things to have "Space" in them instead of "Air" or "Sea" anyway. Basic slang would probably go Air Force as well, and a lot of traditional Navy terminology is really sort of irrelevant in space.

I would personally suspect it to wind up something of a hybrid favoring Air Force. It's worth noting that, at least in the U.S. Military, things typical boil down to Army-Air Force and Navy-Marines vis-a-vis terminology, so it would be a strange mixture, to be honest. I've always envisioned a future nation's military basically boiling down into a Terrestrial force and an Aerospace force, along vaguely similar lines as 40K's Guard and Navy. This would be odd for America as it would probably result in a shift to USAF-USMC and Army-Navy, which would be strange bedfellows.

 

[North King]

I suppose it was a bit tangential; still, my point was that the larger and more obvious societal factions are the ones that ought to be actually in the stats, rather than the more specific conspiracies, groups and individuals maneuvering for power right now.

True enough. I think the idea is flexible.

I do agree on the former part, but not on the latter. Even though secrecy does not always apply, I don't think that these permutations are really worth mentioning in the stats. It is practically norm for there to be a large amount of people at the court that wouldn't mind taking the power for themselves, and usually they would not even be worth the mention. For them to be worth mention, they would usually either have to actually take power or at least launch some major rebellion (incidentally, might want to make some rebellion-specific stats; anyway, my point is that this much would naturally be reflected); if they attain great popularity or notoriety or whatever, but fall short of that, then I think a mention in the update and/or in secret reports should be quite enough.

So to sum up, a system of "public" factions and the freedom to conspire in relative secrecy. I'm just afraid that not many people will bother with the latter option, which, I suppose, is the main argument in favour of your proposed system. Then again, that isn't supposed to happen successfully very often.

Hmm, good thoughts. I suppose only the most official factions in the stats, along with an overall loyalty which triggers rebellion at a low level?

I suppose it's a nice idea, but having said that I must add that this is madness. I don't think that we could make it work right now or any time soon, not in a regular type NES as opposed to a one-nation NES or somesuch.

Why not, out of curiosity? Simply too unwieldy?

Well, it's pretty much a given that for a NES to be truly successful they would have to get a large number of players somehow.

Not necessarily, though typically true.