| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| NS2 Time Period Poll | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 13 2008, 03:26 PM (929 Views) | |
| Arya Hindustan | Oct 14 2008, 10:01 AM Post #26 |
Private
|
Yes, whole heartedly agree. If we RP what happen, that there is no use or fun in it. We RP an alternate history, where we can see our "custom" forms and systems of governance emerging. And still, I would like it to eventually come back to the present/go back to the future.(Okay wait, thats a little paradoxical, cos future would be back. Ok nobody cares, so nvm.) |
 |
 
|
| lebowski2123 | Oct 14 2008, 01:55 PM Post #27 |
Resident?
|
I politely disagree, personally I would prefer if we remained relatively static in our tech levels. |
|
|
|
| Menhad | Oct 14 2008, 05:35 PM Post #28 |
ET2(IDW)
|
I was hoping for a war between me and an Empire of the Rising Sun |
|
|
|
| Rhadamanthus | Oct 14 2008, 11:16 PM Post #29 |
Legitimist
|
Good point. Somebody must be Japan. |
|
|
|
| Arya Hindustan | Oct 15 2008, 02:28 AM Post #30 |
|
Private
|
I wouldnt mind being a Japan like country. We are Asians looking to establish power. But, are we going to follow what happen, or write our own history? And still, I would prefer to come/go to the future/present after that. |
|
|
|
| Telosan | Oct 15 2008, 06:22 AM Post #31 |
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
I had thought we'd use real history up to that point we choose, just switched around to put our countries in, and then write our own as we go along while still throwing in major events such as WW1 and 2. |
|
|
|
| Union | Oct 15 2008, 07:55 AM Post #32 |
Pyrenees Republic
|
No. |
|
|
|
| Arya Hindustan | Oct 15 2008, 08:09 AM Post #33 |
|
Private
|
I guess a couple more polls are the only way to find out. |
|
|
|
| Rhadamanthus | Oct 15 2008, 09:25 AM Post #34 |
|
Legitimist
|
It is well established that we are using our own history in all the country descriptions in the NS2 thread. |
|
|
|
| Filo | Oct 15 2008, 12:46 PM Post #35 |
General
|
A medieval time? May be around year 1000 AD |
|
|
|
| lebowski2123 | Oct 15 2008, 01:28 PM Post #36 |
|
Resident?
|
Yes, and I would once more like to make it known that I do not think we should develop from whatever tech we choose, except for minor advancements. |
|
|
|
| Telosan | Oct 15 2008, 01:44 PM Post #37 |
|
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
Alright, was just a bit confused there. Next issue, anyone? |
|
|
|
| Filo | Oct 15 2008, 04:38 PM Post #38 |
|
General
|
I have a question that maybe belong to other thread but...what appened to our nations here? I wish continue to play NAN...the other one are not so much important...but NAN... |
|
|
|
| Rhadamanthus | Oct 15 2008, 05:32 PM Post #39 |
|
Legitimist
|
Filo, your nations here will still be here. The current RP will continue as normal without any changes. NS2 will be new and separate, as a secondary side forum. Whatever nation you wish to have in NS2 you can choose in the other thread. If you want to plan NAN in that game too, you can, but it will also continue here. |
|
|
|
| Arya Hindustan | Oct 16 2008, 04:37 AM Post #40 |
|
Private
|
I still would advocate to go/come back to the present/future |
|
|
|
| Filo | Oct 16 2008, 06:20 AM Post #41 |
|
General
|
Ok Thanks RD i have just a few ideas... |
|
|
|
| Sedulius | Oct 16 2008, 08:39 AM Post #42 |
Field Marshal
|
This is actually what I wanted to do, so as to avoid confusion among new people. I remember finding this rather annoying when I got to this forum at first, to the point where I almost didn't stay. But I rolled with it... As far as advancing in tech up to modern age, I want this as well. I know others are objected to this, but if we did advancement right, we could do this. I think that advancement should be done whenever the majority of the active forum feels the era should advance. We might play the industrial era for a year or two, and then people will say "I like this, but it'd be nice to have something new." So we advance. That's part of the flaw of the current system: we have nowhere to advance, thus there isn't much new. Honestly, I would be for the idea of starting at 1000 AD. I suppose a longer list for the starting era should be drafted. Hell, I'd go before Christ even, but then Catholic Europe wouldn't exactly be around... I get Ireland and can go by their history no matter what, no matter how far back we go. So that's cool with me. :P EDIT- Only problem with going that far back is that very few nations could have colonies. The Irish were fishing off the coasts of Canada in 800 AD, and the Vikings made a small colony there that didn't last long after 1000 AD. It took nearly 500 years before anybody else sailed to America's shores, and he thought it was Asia. Only then did colonization really begin. So if you want European colonization, and you're not some northern power, then the earliest you'll want is likely the end of the 15th century. Edited by Sedulius, Oct 16 2008, 08:45 AM.
|
|
|
|
| NRE | Oct 16 2008, 10:15 AM Post #43 |
Map Tsar and Southern Gentleman
|
As Fun as NS2 may turn out I just don't have the time to keep up with a country or countries and certainly won't be able to RP them. |
|
|
|
| Rhadamanthus | Oct 16 2008, 12:51 PM Post #44 |
|
Legitimist
|
Our map only makes sense to me in a post-colonial era frankly. I'm not interested in playing this game before (at absolutely earliest) 1750, but would prefer a setting after 1850. |
|
|
|
| East Anarx | Oct 16 2008, 01:00 PM Post #45 |
Anarchitect
|
I agree. However, I'll be playing my Free Norse nation as having diverged from RL history around 800 AD. |
|
|
|
| lebowski2123 | Oct 16 2008, 01:35 PM Post #46 |
|
Resident?
|
I think that the issue of time advancement should be addressed. Now, I am not opposed to innovation and progression on a small scale, however there will undoubtedly be problems when the "time" comes for our tech level to advance. For instance, will all nations have equal ability to advance? That certainly isn't realistic, but otherwise things won't be "fair". Similarly, who's to say that technology would have developed in an alternative world in the same exact fashion that it has up to today in RL. Such rigid guidelines won't make for much fun with technology or progress, only devolve into a constant battle of "My new gun beats your new gun so I win." Or "My bombs have a huge blast radius now, so you're all dead." |
|
|
|
| Sedulius | Oct 16 2008, 01:50 PM Post #47 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Well, it doesn't have to be rigid. RL example: the Zulu War. The Zulus lost to the Brits, sure, but they still put up a hell of a fight. Fairness is relative. I wouldn't mind playing the technologically inferior underdog. Maybe a medieval civilization cannot beat an industrial one, but that stretch will likely not be made on here. A renaissance civilization would have the potential to win a defending war against an industrial one. Probably wouldn't, but it would have a chance. The tech advancement I propose should only be done when the active forum majority (2/3 maybe) wishes to do so. And the tech advancement would be small. Industrial would step up to WWI era, WWI era would step up to Depression era, that would step up WWII era, and so on. To be clear, I'm not suggesting there be a WWI and WWII (though I'd like that), I'm simply using them to describe that era of technology. |
|
|
|
| lebowski2123 | Oct 16 2008, 01:55 PM Post #48 |
|
Resident?
|
And how would you feel, as a nation of superior technology, when an inferior nation attempts to justify his victory, using men armed with spears alone, over your trained army of riflemen? |
|
|
|
| Telosan | Oct 16 2008, 02:41 PM Post #49 |
|
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
I think everyone should be at the same general tech level. I know that in the late 1700s to late 1800s, many still carried swords in case of melee (though late 1800s mostly just officers). However, there comes a point where spears could be used against rifles. Now, playing on human psyche, MOST humans are overconfident when they field better technology or numbers. History shows us that repeatedly. The famous 300. 300 against an entire army. What I'm getting at is, if someone is confident they can win with their technology, they aren't going to field alot of it because they're getting cocky. Plus newer weapons were increasingly hard to move quickly. So, there is a high chance that spearmen can overrun or route an elite riflemen or artillery. There'd be higher than usual causualties, but it's entirely plausible. |
|
|
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Oct 16 2008, 03:49 PM Post #50 |
Science and Industry
|
Purely incorrect. |
|
|
|
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
11:38 AM Jul 13