Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Realization
Topic Started: Sep 19 2009, 02:29 PM (816 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

T.O.
Sep 20 2009, 08:41 PM
Listen, we tried the CPs, these didn't work.

Also, our world isn't logical. Population is low on the un-logical list.

When I was small I won a lot of wars, more recently I have lost more and more. I let Al Qalaa nuke a fleet of over 400 ships. The Dominion destroyed Menhad.

SO JUST STOP WORRYING ABOUT IT!
but most people aren't as generous as you. What you do doesn't apply to everyone else.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Menhad
Member Avatar
ET2(IDW)
Atticus
Sep 20 2009, 08:45 PM
T.O.
Sep 20 2009, 08:41 PM
Listen, we tried the CPs, these didn't work.

Also, our world isn't logical. Population is low on the un-logical list.

When I was small I won a lot of wars, more recently I have lost more and more. I let Al Qalaa nuke a fleet of over 400 ships. The Dominion destroyed Menhad.

SO JUST STOP WORRYING ABOUT IT!
but most people aren't as generous as you. What you do doesn't apply to everyone else.
The only veteran who is less generous than me is Scy. Ask anyone who has dealt with both of us.

I do toss my weight around. And you will see plenty more of it with the Teutonic Order
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Atticus
Sep 20 2009, 08:45 PM
T.O.
Sep 20 2009, 08:41 PM
Listen, we tried the CPs, these didn't work.

Also, our world isn't logical. Population is low on the un-logical list.

When I was small I won a lot of wars, more recently I have lost more and more. I let Al Qalaa nuke a fleet of over 400 ships. The Dominion destroyed Menhad.

SO JUST STOP WORRYING ABOUT IT!
but most people aren't as generous as you. What you do doesn't apply to everyone else.
Learning when to be generous is part of learning how to play here...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Union
Member Avatar
Pyrenees Republic
I support this system existing as another option, complete with maps and such to actually play out a war between two people.

I, for one, lose all motivation to type walls of text if the outcome is already determined. See the Fall of Hispania.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
There is no fall of Hispania. The story was never written. As it stands, I've hand snipers training the Galician population for over a RL year probably an IC decade.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Huesca
Sep 20 2009, 08:55 PM
I support this system existing as another option, complete with maps and such to actually play out a war between two people.

I, for one, lose all motivation to type walls of text if the outcome is already determined. See the Fall of Hispania.
How would we use the maps and such to determine a war, and will it be determined solely by strategy?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Telosan
Sep 20 2009, 08:57 PM
There is no fall of Hispania. The story was never written. As it stands, I've hand snipers training the Galician population for over a RL year probably an IC decade.
It was completed in outline form last year - if it didn't happen, you wouldn't even have that land.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Union
Member Avatar
Pyrenees Republic
IC its over and done with, Telosan.

:lol:

A forum I play on, EE, has a well-developed system. Essentially, you'd make a grid or provincial map of the battlefield. You would determine how many ICs you get using the system, and then purchase military equipment with those ICs. You then place the military units on a map. A central mod exists who receives orders and such from both sides, and marks the movements. If a battle occurs, he looks at the units, etc, and determines a winner through dice rolls, etc.

Each side has its own objectives and the like, and whoever wins the war completes their objectives. In some cases in EE, there have been total victories, where one player can do whatever he wants, from regime change to annexation (not total, but of a majority of the territory) and the like. The loser has to roleplay the results, to some degree. This creates a sense of actual tension in the game, as over extending yourself can be catastrophic, and fuels alliances like no tomorrow. It also gives things a sense of thrill, and makes people do more to try to avoid war, or prepare for it.

It is a different way of playing the game. I came from there originally, and stuck with it. Here the priority is telling a story, while I enjoy the strategic aspects of geopolitics. I was fine with being between both, but EE has been in a slow death, so i would like to import the war system here to use as an alternative to simply writing chapters of novels to players who would like to.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
Huesca
Sep 20 2009, 09:15 PM
A forum I play on, EE, has a well-developed system. Essentially, you'd make a grid or provincial map of the battlefield. You would determine how many ICs you get using the system, and then purchase military equipment with those ICs. You then place the military units on a map. A central mod exists who receives orders and such from both sides, and marks the movements. If a battle occurs, he looks at the units, etc, and determines a winner through dice rolls, etc.

Each side has its own objectives and the like, and whoever wins the war completes their objectives. In some cases in EE, there have been total victories, where one player can do whatever he wants, from regime change to annexation (not total, but of a majority of the territory) and the like. The loser has to roleplay the results, to some degree. This creates a sense of actual tension in the game, as over extending yourself can be catastrophic, and fuels alliances like no tomorrow. It also gives things a sense of thrill, and makes people do more to try to avoid war, or prepare for it.

It is a different way of playing the game. I came from there originally, and stuck with it. Here the priority is telling a story, while I enjoy the strategic aspects of geopolitics. I was fine with being between both, but EE has been in a slow death, so i would like to import the war system here to use as an alternative to simply writing chapters of novels to players who would like to.
Sounds interesting, but a bit confusing. Might just because it's late and I'm barely comprehending anything right now, but can you explain it a bit more? I've always thought the wars shouldn't be decided ahead of time. In wars I'm in, I don't often plan much other than the desired and agreed upon outcome. I perfer to make it up as we go, with maps making great visual aids.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Union
Member Avatar
Pyrenees Republic
Have you ever played Risk? It is like that, except players would take turns at the same time.

It is a complicated system. A nice introduction would be to allow you and Atticus to play seperate sides in Huescan war games, with me as mod.

If you do want to read up on it, and the 28 pages of debate that accompany all war systems, here is a link: http://z4.invisionfree.com/Eastern_European_HQ/index.php?showtopic=28
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
I'll read it tommorow. I'm for the intro idea. How does it factor in different qualities and quantities of units? The FC's military hasn't been fleshed out yet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Menhad
Member Avatar
ET2(IDW)
I understand, some times I lack the motivation to write. But your system sound like a crappy game(no offense). Really I like the way it is here, and I don't want that to change.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Union
Member Avatar
Pyrenees Republic
It doesn't. Each unit costs X IC. A militia unit may be 1 IC, while a heavy infantry unit would be 4 or 5.

:P

EDIT:

It is because it is a game, essentially, Menhad. It is simply an alternative I would like to see employed sometimes. It is a different way to play. I do not want to make it mandatory.
Edited by Union, Sep 20 2009, 09:27 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Huesca
Sep 20 2009, 09:15 PM
IC its over and done with, Telosan.

:lol:

A forum I play on, EE, has a well-developed system. Essentially, you'd make a grid or provincial map of the battlefield. You would determine how many ICs you get using the system, and then purchase military equipment with those ICs. You then place the military units on a map. A central mod exists who receives orders and such from both sides, and marks the movements. If a battle occurs, he looks at the units, etc, and determines a winner through dice rolls, etc.

Each side has its own objectives and the like, and whoever wins the war completes their objectives. In some cases in EE, there have been total victories, where one player can do whatever he wants, from regime change to annexation (not total, but of a majority of the territory) and the like. The loser has to roleplay the results, to some degree. This creates a sense of actual tension in the game, as over extending yourself can be catastrophic, and fuels alliances like no tomorrow. It also gives things a sense of thrill, and makes people do more to try to avoid war, or prepare for it.

It is a different way of playing the game. I came from there originally, and stuck with it. Here the priority is telling a story, while I enjoy the strategic aspects of geopolitics. I was fine with being between both, but EE has been in a slow death, so i would like to import the war system here to use as an alternative to simply writing chapters of novels to players who would like to.
I say that would make a good combination; the story-telling and the grid system.

I like to write and narrative these stories, but truthfully, the quick decision and the tension of a real battle would be much better. When I first joined this forum, I was told about the wars here and I was expecting an actual battle system. But when I found out it was all story based, I was a little disappointed, but I went along with it, and pretty soon I got into my own RP. Now that was a very exciting RP and I enjoyed it greatly. But a real battle system combined with story telling would have so much more depth.

Huesca, could you please PM me about this system a little bit more, I am extremely interested.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Union
Member Avatar
Pyrenees Republic
I'll PM you guys who want to participate in the war games I proposed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Atticus
Sep 20 2009, 08:21 PM
Telosan
Sep 20 2009, 02:25 PM
I've never fully understood the current system. Huesca's idea is easily comprehensible and logical. I voted yes to it.

I never stated any numbers to my armies or populations. I've mentioned sizes of armies, but never how many I have. Atticus brings up a point that's bothered me for some time and I have to agree with Sed on feeling noobish even after 1 1/2 years here. NS has exorbitant population levels. If we took into account the trouble the earth has supporting the RL population, our world would've died long ago with the NS population. I barely use NS anymore. I've had my nations set to "vacation mode" for over a year, logging in to keep them alive just because it's a requirment of the forum. Even then my nations die off frequently.

Huesca's proposed an equation for military and population. If there was one for the economy, I'd be all for it. Maybe making the 3 equations linked. Military depends on population and economy, the population grows by Huesca's formula, and the economy grows based on several things. If we made an economic formula, we could even factor in bonuses you might get for trading with x number of people, or a bonus for trading with a superpower.

Just throwing ideas out and stating my stance.
The population here is insane, for example IRL, the population is 6,706,993,152, but in Scotland, there is over 12,000,000,000. How can 12 billion people fit in Scotland?

I think this would be a good system, especially better than the one we have. The only bad thing would be that people can't have 7 Million+ armies anymore.
As I said, midgets. Or rather little people.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toussaint
Member Avatar
Major
Huesca
Sep 20 2009, 09:35 PM
I'll PM you guys who want to participate in the war games I proposed.
I'd be interested.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
T.O.
Sep 20 2009, 08:41 PM
Listen, we tried the CPs, these didn't work.

Also, our world isn't logical. Population is low on the un-logical list.

When I was small I won a lot of wars, more recently I have lost more and more. I let Al Qalaa nuke a fleet of over 400 ships. The Dominion destroyed Menhad.

SO JUST STOP WORRYING ABOUT IT!
The Dominion had you dead to rights, but otherwise thats all true. Though at least you didn't win OR lose during the German Civil War...

And god no more CPs. We had a cadre of CP nazis who'd bug everyone about the system.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Telosan
Sep 20 2009, 09:19 PM
I've always thought the wars shouldn't be decided ahead of time. In wars I'm in, I don't often plan much other than the desired and agreed upon outcome. I perfer to make it up as we go, with maps making great visual aids.
You should have fun.

If one player is going to start whining that they wanted to win and are being screwed over and now they're quitting, that's not fun.
If you feel like you're going through the motions because the outcome has been planned out, that's not fun.

When you go to war with someone there should be an understanding about how things will play out. I like to sit back and let whatever happens happen, but I also like to be involved in other people's ideas and to not dick over other people's nations - so if someone PM's me and asks me to fight but lose in the end then I'll fight and lose in the end. If they want to plan a bit more detail than that then we'll plan a bit more detail.

Plan as much or as little as you like.

****

Eh. Whatever I said about H's idea last year I'll say again now... uh...

"Now... don't get me wrong, I like the idea of RPing without nationstates. And this idea seems balanced.

But... well... we're a nationstates forum. So... no."

Aside from Georgia... I can't think of a single war Nag Ehgoeg has won. And I'm the second largest nation here. Paradise is constantly losing because it's fun for small states to dogpile on him.

You do not need to sit at NationStates and pass every single military issue to get 99% defence spending - the current system caps your spending at 40%. Nor do you need to sit and NS and pass every single economy issue to max out your economy - you just need to be in the top third. And all this is for your "on paper" military - it's not required to win wars.

The point of this forum is to make NS more fun by giving us a place to RP (a place free from the space empires and multi-verse that you find on the main game's forums). It's a place to come together and tell stories. It is not a place to roll dice and win wars.

If we want to revive Rex Mundi then I'd be all for that. Hell, we can drag and drop Rex into the space left by NS2.

If we want to try out H's system, then I don't mind giving it a go - we can drag and drop that into the space left by NS2.

But our NS1 game should still be linked to NS1.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Nag Ehgoeg
Sep 21 2009, 07:02 AM
Telosan
Sep 20 2009, 09:19 PM
I've always thought the wars shouldn't be decided ahead of time. In wars I'm in, I don't often plan much other than the desired and agreed upon outcome. I perfer to make it up as we go, with maps making great visual aids.
You should have fun.

If one player is going to start whining that they wanted to win and are being screwed over and now they're quitting, that's not fun.
If you feel like you're going through the motions because the outcome has been planned out, that's not fun.

When you go to war with someone there should be an understanding about how things will play out. I like to sit back and let whatever happens happen, but I also like to be involved in other people's ideas and to not dick over other people's nations - so if someone PM's me and asks me to fight but lose in the end then I'll fight and lose in the end. If they want to plan a bit more detail than that then we'll plan a bit more detail.

Plan as much or as little as you like.

****

Eh. Whatever I said about H's idea last year I'll say again now... uh...

"Now... don't get me wrong, I like the idea of RPing without nationstates. And this idea seems balanced.

But... well... we're a nationstates forum. So... no."

Aside from Georgia... I can't think of a single war Nag Ehgoeg has won. And I'm the second largest nation here. Paradise is constantly losing because it's fun for small states to dogpile on him.

You do not need to sit at NationStates and pass every single military issue to get 99% defence spending - the current system caps your spending at 40%. Nor do you need to sit and NS and pass every single economy issue to max out your economy - you just need to be in the top third. And all this is for your "on paper" military - it's not required to win wars.

The point of this forum is to make NS more fun by giving us a place to RP (a place free from the space empires and multi-verse that you find on the main game's forums). It's a place to come together and tell stories. It is not a place to roll dice and win wars.

If we want to revive Rex Mundi then I'd be all for that. Hell, we can drag and drop Rex into the space left by NS2.

If we want to try out H's system, then I don't mind giving it a go - we can drag and drop that into the space left by NS2.

But our NS1 game should still be linked to NS1.
Actually there is no cap, I have above 40% defense spending.

Besides, this wouldn't be changing the entire system, it would just give people more of a variety.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kasnyia
Member Avatar
Chairman of the Bank
Whatever is above 40% isn't counted is what Nag means. So yes, there is a cap.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Really? I didn't know it wasn't counted. Why do we do that, shouldn't a country be free to choose how much they spend on defense?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
Now imagine how much more unbalanced a country would be if it was counted.

There was just a recent discussion about this in the "How to make a Military Guide" topic. I highly suggest reading the last page or two of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Atticus
Sep 21 2009, 10:51 PM
Really? I didn't know it wasn't counted. Why do we do that, shouldn't a country be free to choose how much they spend on defense?
The military guide caps out at 40%. Purely to make it so that you don't have to pass every single defence issue just to stay competitive. This way you can actually run your NS nation how you'd like. 40% is much more than realistic.

That said, the military guide only exists so that we have a common frame of reference for the armed forces. If the people involved in a war want to count higher defensive spending they're free to do so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply