While We Wait: Part 4
- Thread starter Thlayli
- Start date
Abaddon
Deity
Aha, nice one 
LittleBoots
The Bloody Banner
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,979
Just a thought, given that I've been harping on not talking about politics for the sake of keeping While We Wait open...
Discussing theoretical future happenings should fall under the heading "NES-related," given that: A) We discuss alternate possibilities for past occurrences, and B) the same speculation can apply to possibilities for Modern/Future NESes. This is contrasted with discussing the particular merits of specific candidates in America, and compared to discussing the theoretical ideas they may represent in relation to government in an NES.
Maybe an irrelevant post, but EQ said "Back to NES-related topics" and I wanted to briefly defend (to us, and to potential Moderation) certain political discussion.
Also, to Supermath's question: Having read the older NESes, and played in some that at least appear to be similar to the older style, I think I prefer the "modern" way of doing things. However, it could simply be that many of the players have matured in many ways and so things seem more realistically done. For instance, I carried on a three hundred year colonial war with Tartessos (Gibraltar) as the High Kingdom of Ireland (with French and Spanish colonial holdings) which doesn't make too much sense at all (slightly more sense when you realize the turns were 50 years). Also, to pick on a particular NESer, I remember spearmen who set themselves on fire from the same NES, as well as the most bizarre Egypt I have ever seen in NES VI.
Discussing theoretical future happenings should fall under the heading "NES-related," given that: A) We discuss alternate possibilities for past occurrences, and B) the same speculation can apply to possibilities for Modern/Future NESes. This is contrasted with discussing the particular merits of specific candidates in America, and compared to discussing the theoretical ideas they may represent in relation to government in an NES.
Maybe an irrelevant post, but EQ said "Back to NES-related topics" and I wanted to briefly defend (to us, and to potential Moderation) certain political discussion.
Also, to Supermath's question: Having read the older NESes, and played in some that at least appear to be similar to the older style, I think I prefer the "modern" way of doing things. However, it could simply be that many of the players have matured in many ways and so things seem more realistically done. For instance, I carried on a three hundred year colonial war with Tartessos (Gibraltar) as the High Kingdom of Ireland (with French and Spanish colonial holdings) which doesn't make too much sense at all (slightly more sense when you realize the turns were 50 years). Also, to pick on a particular NESer, I remember spearmen who set themselves on fire from the same NES, as well as the most bizarre Egypt I have ever seen in NES VI.
Abaddon
Deity
I thought it stood for "standard" instead of fs used for fanatsy NES
Symphony D.
Deity
You forgot that John McCain is a Manchurian Candidate.
I would like to see a POD where all three of these assertions (Antichrist, Illuminati Grandmaster, and Manchurian Candidate for Obama, Clinton, and McCain, respectively) are true. Under this assumption, who wins, and what do they do? Submit all answers to the Creative Writing thread.
That's what I thought at first, but IIRC, stJNES V (or was it VII; the latest one, anyway) was a Fresh Start, which was what I decided fs meant. Of course, I could be wrong there as well.
jalapeno_dude
AKA Panda Judo Eel
Hey, that one wasn't my fault!
But yes, the 300 year war was bad. Very bad.
I still think that there are some significant realism problems today, though. Three of the most glaring:
-The same nation existing for thousands of years. Has this ever actually happened IRL? (And don't mention China, that wasn't at all one continuous nation).
-Victorious nations completely annexing the losers of wars.
-Endless blob expansion into the unknown. There were reasons people didn't go settle in the middle of nowhere, and they tend to be ignored in NESes.
You make valid points with your complaints toward Fresh-Start. However, Jason The King has noticed that in the past, as have I. To an extent, it is impossible to avoid those flaws. However, JTK is one of the best moderators on these forums and has had years to refine his skill. We'll see how this one turns out.
Symphony D.
Deity
It'd have to be NESers then, as Egypt was mostly Thlayli's fault.
The other points are valid and I agree wholeheartedly, but this one is sort of silly. Territorial claims are entirely different from settlement. That's ostensibly one of the chief purposes of displaying cities, otherwise maps could just be colors and borders. All national color represents is what you claim and can at least to some degree hold on to. Whether it's worth anything is completely separate.
jalapeno_dude
AKA Panda Judo Eel
Fine. Let me restate my complaint as
"Increasing the economy of players due to endless blob expansion."
Happy?
Even though in theory land controlled is different than exploited/worthwhile land, in practice it usually isn't in NESes.
you say "usually" isn't. You're correct in that statement. However, JTK has in the past taken this into account and a good moderator would take terrain details and such into mind before allowing expansion into different regions. A stNES relies on the moderator to make the decision, not the players; which is why NESes by china444 generally failed just to name one of many examples.
Symphony D.
Deity
No. I would disagree with that as regards most games run by capable moderators in the current climate.Happy?
alex994
Hail Divine Emperor!
Hey, that one wasn't my fault!
But yes, the 300 year war was bad. Very bad.
I still think that there are some significant realism problems today, though. Three of the most glaring:
-The same nation existing for thousands of years. Has this ever actually happened IRL? (And don't mention China, that wasn't at all one continuous nation).
-Victorious nations completely annexing the losers of wars.
-Endless blob expansion into the unknown. There were reasons people didn't go settle in the middle of nowhere, and they tend to be ignored in NESes.
Hey! China may not have existed continually politically as one nation with all the strife, but it existed culturally as one unified well, entity!
I also remember losing thousands of troops just to get to the Po River.... What about all my wars with Carthage jal, I didn't annex Carthage until the last war 
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
To be honest, the "ruleset" for players in our OTL India, Europe, and China from 500-1700 would be COMPLETELY different for each area.
Three completely different examples of state creation there, and all operating under different political and economic arrangements.
Three completely different examples of state creation there, and all operating under different political and economic arrangements.
Abaddon
Deity
Could such a NES be done with a multilayered ruleset?
Oh, an who thinks JTK will stay about for this NES.. his last one stalled after 1 update?
Oh, an who thinks JTK will stay about for this NES.. his last one stalled after 1 update?
Symphony D.
Deity
Incorrect. Most major subdivisions of countries require different rulesets, regardless of time period. In NESing, every single country more or less operates a command economy, regardless of how its economy is actually structured. Similarly, every single military relies on conscription, regardless of how it's actually formed. In most games, even where it's grossly inappropriate, most nations rely upon standing armies.
Arguably the only really effective system thusfar put into practice which even attempted to break up these areas was that of BirdNES, and it was rather limited in its implementations. That's the area where NESing's chain links are weakest, other than players: uniform rules.
Cuivienen did it once for a DoA NES...
Abaddon
Deity
Yes, thats where it came from in my head.. an perhaps after reading the "guide"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Out of interest, how do people think is correct form to write an extended conversation for use as a story in NES? I'm thinking the most important bit is ease of following the conversation between each character.
italicizing one character? colour etc?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Out of interest, how do people think is correct form to write an extended conversation for use as a story in NES? I'm thinking the most important bit is ease of following the conversation between each character.
italicizing one character? colour etc?
alex994
Hail Divine Emperor!
Or just skipping lines
A great number of my stories are dialogues. I usually just name one character, name another, and then have them alternate. It is good if the two characters are quite different, so one doesn't get confused. You can also refer to characters by name in the conversation, to remove doubts.
EDIT: I'll take this post to say that most of the early LINESII maps have been annihilated by the upload hacker, and I don't have backups for the really old ones.
EDIT: I'll take this post to say that most of the early LINESII maps have been annihilated by the upload hacker, and I don't have backups for the really old ones.
