| 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 Ideas. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 4 2009, 01:29 PM (458 Views) | |
| Telosan | Oct 4 2009, 01:29 PM Post #1 |
![]()
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
I want to see what people think of the ideas I've mentioned in the other thread. First up, infantry. Should we be allowed to choose infantry type to be the standard of our armies? This lets your armies specialize in offense, if you're a nation of warriors, or defense, if you're a nation that likes to keep to themselves. If the stats of these units become an issue, I'll work at them. ~~~~~ Next up, the unique units. Should we introduce faction specific units? This allows several interesting aspects of gameplay and RP. If you hire mercenaries and you want the best you can get from, say, the Byzantines, you'll want the Cataphracts or something. If you wanted longships, you'd call up the Vikings, etc. This also allows further customization of your faction. Your unit could have awesome attack, but terrible move and defense. They could have nice defense, but awful attack and average move. For determining the stats of these units, I thought of an alright system. We'll agree on a number, say 10. You'll have 10 points to distribute among your unit's move, attack, and defense. If you want your unit to have something like a bonus on infantry, for example, it'd cost you 3 points or something. I'll collect the stats on these as well if we decide to do this. For this idea, Huesca responded with: I'd perfer not to do that, as it's not the same. You have Arquebuses and call them Elite Longbowmen, I think it would lead to some confusion when looking at the map, which mentions Arquebuses, and then at the RP which mentions Elite Longbowmen. ~~~~~ The next idea refers to leadership. It's actually two ideas in one, which can be separated. Since it was mentioned in the OT forums, I figure that most of us are familiar with the Total War games. We could also try to use some of the ideas on Generals from there. The generals in the Total War games were ranked on certain areas on expertise, Influence, Chivalry, Piety, Command, Loyalty, and Authority are a few the game used. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Oct 4 2009, 01:50 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
I would like to think Generals/Kings could have a positive or negative effect depending on their quality. |
![]() |
|
| Telosan | Oct 4 2009, 01:53 PM Post #3 |
![]()
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
That's part of what I meant. I forgot to add another idea I had, dividing up the regions into sub-regions to it's entirely possible to lose a battle, but not entire sections of a country. That you can have more intricate manuevers, without leaving your borders. And my idea on the capitals/major cities being their own sub-region. Anyone else have an idea, throw it out here. Edited by Telosan, Oct 4 2009, 01:54 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Oct 4 2009, 03:41 PM Post #4 |
|
Field Marshal
|
I voted no on everything but unique units. I don't like that we're trying to systematize it so much. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Oct 4 2009, 10:28 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
In the war system, the map would be divided into much smaller territories, regardless of the actual "provinces" purchased. 1- Infantry is generic. name it whatever you want. This is important for balancing issues. Rename swordsmen infantry for all I care. 2- Unique units are already possible, through the generic unit system. Purchase two infantry units, call it a single one, and rename it, for the same effect. As of now, who decides faction units and who balances them? What about factions that do not exist? 3- A crappy general would be a morale decreaser. Who decides if a general is crappy or not? I agree with Sed. This is not Total War. This is a game with a war system which supplements, but does not replace, the RP system. This is a game which players must understand. Telosan, you have no yet tried to moderate a war. It is difficult enough with four unit types, and can take a few hours as is. Adding more units is enticing in theory. This is why it is taking me so long to post the next update to our war games. |
![]() |
|
| lebowski2123 | Oct 4 2009, 10:56 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Resident?
|
I agree. |
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Oct 4 2009, 11:53 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
All of that stuff sounds wonderful. My concern is the complexity this adds for the people who will actually be moderating this. A vote to indicate what is appealing to people is not a bad idea at all. But I think that the decision on whether or not to actually implement any of these ideas should be left up to the people who will actually have to run this game because, unlike our other game(s) here this game looks like it will actually have to be run by a dedicated team of players. If they can't make it work, I don't think it's going to make it into the game. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Oct 5 2009, 12:38 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
As it works in the other forum is that individuals volunteer to mod a specific conflict, when they have no interest in the outcome. Rather than a dedicated team, this means the system must be easily accessible enough that any player could conceivably pick it up if need comes. For example, if only Telo and I understand the war system enough to use it, we're up shits creek when I declare war on him. :) This is why a simple base is necessary, and then, if the moderators agree, extra things can be added in, such as unique units or generals. Edited by Union, Oct 5 2009, 12:38 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Al Araam | Oct 5 2009, 02:35 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
Sounds like a solid idea to me. |
![]() |
|
| Telosan | Oct 5 2009, 04:20 PM Post #10 |
![]()
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
|
I've offerred to moderate a war and would be fulling willing to give it a shot. I was not intending to systemize it, or at least to the degree as it appears now that it's been pointed out. For infantry type, I'd be willing to concede that point. While it allows armies to be more customizable, using the same system I mention in the Faction Unique Unit arguement, it's not nearly as important. Though, I think it adds more strategy if your infantry excels at attack, but the archers can slaugher them easily from a distance, or if your infantry can hold up against repeated cavalry charges but can't hit a damn thing. Maybe I wasn't totaly clear with this idea. I don't mean that you can choose like the faction unique units. I mean that infantry becomes a category, with options in it that you can pick 1 time when you start out to have swordsmen or axemen or whatever. Faction specific units seems to be a popular one. The reason I'm saying that having an actual unit for the unique units rather than putting together generic ones, is that adding generic unit stats together will only ever add up to one number. If 2 people want a unique archer unit, by Huesca's system their archer's stats would be the same, double the normal unit in every category. My system, which I'm not saying is better, would allot the person a certain number of points, everyone having an equal number. This means people can have elite archer units that are still different than someone else's. Say England and Spain want unique archer units. England's unique archers could have 6 attack, 3 defense, and 1 move. Spain's unique archers can have 8 attack, 1 defense, and 1 move. See what I mean? ~~~~~ For the two ideas above, since it'd be using my system, I would have no problem whatsoever of compiling the information on people's infantry and unique units. On military description pages, it should be listed their unique units and type of infantry, but I intend on posting a list showing everyone's unique unit and thier stats in one location, one post. Same with the infantry units. ~~~~~ The last 2 ideas having to do with Generals/Kings are linked. They can boost or decrease troops effectiveness based on how well the general/king performs. There wouldn't be a thousand stats, just a few basic ones. This idea I was intending to infuse with an RP aspect. The way you RP a leader determine's their stats. This guy is a military genius, and this guy is a moron who'd hold a sword backwards if you didn't tell him otherwise. Without what I'm saying, they're equal unless the RPers place their troop movements and such IC, meaning the person with the stupid general has to intentionaly make stupid moves. I'm proposing this idea because, how many times in historic wars do we see men falling back, defeated only to be bolstered by the sight of their general bravely wading into the fray? How many times do winning armies screech to a halt and surrender/get smashed because that brave general got himself killed? What if the general sucks? Who cares if he fights at the front or gets killed? I'm also bringing it up because several times since I've been here, people, myself included, have their leaders everywhere at the same time. Even right now, I have my Consul listed in 3 locations at the same time. Since the generals would have more value past an actual RP, people would take more notice of where the character is, cause he can't be slaughtering Turks while invading England. Also, thanks for clearing up the sub-regions question, Huesca. |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Oct 5 2009, 04:22 PM Post #11 |
|
Field Marshal
|
I think everyone involved should take the time to understand the system so everyone can moderate. This way, if the world went to war, any one person could stay out to moderate. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · 1452 General Discussion · Next Topic » |












11:29 AM Jul 13