Complete Nation States.

[Gal Seren Roan]

why then can't someone develop an online game combining all of the aspects of Nation States and the war games that function well with solid sets of rules.???

[Chaos Butterflies]

I suppose that it is true that it would take a lot of work and it would definitley change the workings of the game... what is to bad though is no one has taken the time to actually do a decent game like Nation States that includes the options for war, trade etc.. because it is doable... it is just a question of enough time, effort and creativity

It has been done over and over again. However, there is no perfect balance when you start tree-ing out a lot. Check out Tom Clancy's "End War" game. It has a very balanced system, so much in fact that I hate playing it. I hate not being able to steamroll over other players, when they can just whip up a few counter units and unless I have counter counter units I'm screwed. This doesn't even account for the time I have to push my counter counter units to defeat the counter units so my other units can counter theirs. Fscking shit sucks.

[Biteme]

The fact that NS has no built-in war function is one of the things that's kept me playing for so long. It may not be in the FAQ that it's not possible, but while Max may have considered it, he's not going to be making such a drastic change anytime soon. War on NS2 proved what a spectacular failure it could be.

If it isn't broke, don't fix it, if y'ask me.

Interesting... I was not aware that NS2 was actually Finished. Once again though I am not someone who likes war!!!!!!! If anything I find it to be a travesty that it exists in our world... But the fact is you dont have a complete representation of the real world whithout it.

Well, very little of the simulation here otherwise mimic the real world well, either. After all, each nation's population just increases and increases without limit to ludicrous sizes regardless of ... well ... everything. As others have said, (1) such proposals have been made for what, over 7 years now, and nobody has developed a workable plan yet, and (2) it was tried in NS2 and was unsuccessful. RPing war in this setting is how wars will be waged. Now, there are items that could be added, it seems, to the settings page to make customizability more complete, such as selecting size of milittary and percentage of the GDP that goes towards defense. However, any attempt to add war besides such minor bookkeeping seems doomed to failure, at least until someone comes up with something new and innovative.

Those games you mention are games centered around conflict - there is really no place in such games for RPing and avoidance of conflict. Does anyone play A&A in the hopes of avoiding conflict? The examples you give are not good ones because at their heart, they are very different than NS. Without armed conflict, there's no point in the game existing at all ...with the possible exception of Civilizations; it's been so long since the one time I played that I don't remember much about it.

I appreciate what you're trying to do; it's just not practical to implement with NS.

[Marcuslandia]

I'm sure somebody already mentioned this, but there already _is_ an inter-regional warfare system that has been in play quite a long time. QUITE abstract in many regards. Has it's proponents and a substantial following.

That sort of suggests that all those many players would NOT be thrilled at the concept of introducing a more hands-on, nuts-and-bolts, myriad of hard numbers with intricate calculations kind of warfare game.

There is also a substantial number of players that simply do NOT want any part of a warfare game. They strive quite hard to separate themselves from the players that DO want to wage war, however abstract as it might be.

That's _two_ substantial blocks of players that wouldn't be interested in a more hands-on, nuts-and-bolts, myriad of hard numbers with intricate calculations kind of warfare game.

Which is actually something of a pity. With all of the data crunching this game does as a matter of course, the Economic, Political, Environmental, and Social impacts a given nation's industrial-military complex could be calculated fairly easily and constantly updated. Size of military, quality of training, unit morale, quality of equipment and weapons, variety of military leaders....All that could be calculated fairly easily.

BUT, after all that programming was plugged in, it would be for the use of a fairly small (comparatively) group of players. Too many bucks, for too little bang.

[Gal Seren Roan]

I suppose that it is true that it would take a lot of work and it would definitley change the workings of the game... what is to bad though is no one has taken the time to actually do a decent game like Nation States that includes the options for war, trade etc.. because it is doable... it is just a question of enough time, effort and creativity

It has been done over and over again. However, there is no perfect balance when you start tree-ing out a lot. Check out Tom Clancy's "End War" game. It has a very balanced system, so much in fact that I hate playing it. I hate not being able to steamroll over other players, when they can just whip up a few counter units and unless I have counter counter units I'm screwed. This doesn't even account for the time I have to push my counter counter units to defeat the counter units so my other units can counter theirs. Fscking shit sucks.

just out of curiosity... did you read my last TWO posts... the first of the last two sort of helps you understand the second of the last two (before this one of coarse...)

[Luchsandria]

This can be decribed in 4 words:

Unrealistic on its face.

[Gal Seren Roan]

I'm sure somebody already mentioned this, but there already _is_ an inter-regional warfare system that has been in play quite a long time. QUITE abstract in many regards. Has it's proponents and a substantial following.

That sort of suggests that all those many players would NOT be thrilled at the concept of introducing a more hands-on, nuts-and-bolts, myriad of hard numbers with intricate calculations kind of warfare game.

There is also a substantial number of players that simply do NOT want any part of a warfare game. They strive quite hard to separate themselves from the players that DO want to wage war, however abstract as it might be.

That's _two_ substantial blocks of players that wouldn't be interested in a more hands-on, nuts-and-bolts, myriad of hard numbers with intricate calculations kind of warfare game.

Which is actually something of a pity. With all of the data crunching this game does as a matter of course, the Economic, Political, Environmental, and Social impacts a given nation's industrial-military complex could be calculated fairly easily and constantly updated. Size of military, quality of training, unit morale, quality of equipment and weapons, variety of military leaders....All that could be calculated fairly easily.

BUT, after all that programming was plugged in, it would be for the use of a fairly small (comparatively) group of players. Too many bucks, for too little bang.

I must say that you have... in your expounding on the possibilities ... hit exactly on the whole spirit of what I intended in the first place... and as well I am seeing that what you said about the players of NS not being interested enough is quite true... what I don't know ... and none know is whether this is better on the whole or not a good thing in the end... Basically I still think it could work and it is a good idea ... I think that Marcuslandia is correct in his assessment that NS players don't really want that...

[Fabrucia]

I've noticed that the NS community can be quite patronising towards newer nations.

Respect people's ideas...don't shoot them down in flames!

I think it's a good idea and would add something to the game. Although, I also see everyones point of view that its covered in roleplay activities.

Please, please, please...stop patronising people and shooting their ideas down!!

[Biteme]

Some Excellent example of war games that work well are Axis and Allies, Risk, Memoire 44, and an even better example of a war game mixed with the other aspects of Nation States is a game called Civilisations. (all of the listed games are board games)

Another thing that would be needed for any type or level of reasonable war simulation is some sort of map of the combatants. How would you propose making one of these? How would you account for countries that expire and adding new ones? How do you make a map of a world comprised of thousands of nations (who move between regions at will) with a total population of hundreds of billions? This aspect alone seems to preclude any such effort. If you don't think a map is necessary, perhaps you could revise your example list and cite successful wargames that don't involve any maps.

Again, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I don't think you've truly considered what would be needed to incorporate that into such a simulation as NS. Something like this needed to have been incorporated from the beginning. Trying to add something now would either be extremely unsatisfying or would require some fundamental and significant changes to the programming that just don't seem worth the effort.

Fabrucia, to be honest, a poorly fleshed out idea is going to be shot down, so please please please either encourage people to consider an idea fully before presenting it, or develop a much thicker skin.

[Gal Seren Roan]

I've noticed that the NS community can be quite patronising towards newer nations.

Respect people's ideas...don't shoot them down in flames!

I think it's a good idea and would add something to the game. Although, I also see everyones point of view that its covered in roleplay activities.

Please, please, please...stop patronising people and shooting their ideas down!!

Thank you for saying that... I personally did not want to say that in an effort to keep everything in a good spirit... but even if I don't mind defending myself against so many negetive thoughts...(mostly because though Roan is young I had had some very powerful nations a long time ago and I know that NS is a good game) but others who really are in here for the first time could really easily just decide its not worth it... Which is a GREAT shame... simply because NS is a great nation simulation. Probably the best that currently exists...

[Valipac]

We aren't patronizing the idea because the player is new. We are expressing dislike in the idea because it takes away from the players ability to freeform roleplay. Or at least I am.

[Gal Seren Roan]

Some Excellent example of war games that work well are Axis and Allies, Risk, Memoire 44, and an even better example of a war game mixed with the other aspects of Nation States is a game called Civilisations. (all of the listed games are board games)

Another thing that would be needed for any type or level of reasonable war simulation is some sort of map of the combatants. How would you propose making one of these? How would you account for countries that expire and adding new ones? How do you make a map of a world comprised of thousands of nations (who move between regions at will) with a total population of hundreds of billions? This aspect alone seems to preclude any such effort. If you don't think a map is necessary, perhaps you could revise your example list and cite successful wargames that don't involve any maps.

Again, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I don't think you've truly considered what would be needed to incorporate that into such a simulation as NS. Something like this needed to have been incorporated from the beginning. Trying to add something now would either be extremely unsatisfying or would require some fundamental and significant changes to the programming that just don't seem worth the effort.

Fabrucia, to be honest, a poorly fleshed out idea is going to be shot down, so please please please either encourage people to consider an idea fully before presenting it, or develop a much thicker skin.

I would absolutely disagree. First the fact that you claimed that the idea is "poorly fleshed out" is a rash judgment... a question i would like YOU to answer is simply this... WHAT in essence is wrong with the system I proposed...??? Besides that it is not feasible in this specific situation. I would like you to imagine it did work... that the system was in place...
tell me.. what kind of problems could there be. BTW a map is not nessecary...
for one thing you could base it on the regions etc... and also... wars are not only confined to land... ever heard of seas and the air..????
those dont really need maps for every nation to have access to them...

[Weylara]

Read the FAQs...

[color=#00FF00]>How do I go to war against another nation? Or trade?

In one sense, you can't. NationStates doesn't include these things -- because it's a simple game, and because they would bias things in favor of militaristic and capitalist nations. One of the nice things about NationStates is that you can craft a nation into your idea of Utopia without having to worry about such pragmatic concerns as national defence.

Into the breach, however, steps the NationStates community, which has independently devised an entire system covering war, trade, and just about anything else you can think of. This takes place entirely on the forums (mostly in "International Incidents"), and is role-played.

Many people have asked about the possibility of a more sophisticated version of NationStates, with trade, military conflicts, and more. This does sound cool, but I haven't decided yet if I want to do that. It would be a lot of work, and I'd have to charge people to play it. But it's possible.
[/color]
this was copied directly from the FAQ page... The fact is that nowhere does it say that such a change is not possible.. also the last paragraph states that Mr. Barry has indeed thought about possibilities like these

Max also states that you can't make him add war to the game. Read below your copied text.

[Gal Seren Roan]

Read the FAQs...

[color=#00FF00]>How do I go to war against another nation? Or trade?

In one sense, you can't. NationStates doesn't include these things -- because it's a simple game, and because they would bias things in favor of militaristic and capitalist nations. One of the nice things about NationStates is that you can craft a nation into your idea of Utopia without having to worry about such pragmatic concerns as national defence.

Into the breach, however, steps the NationStates community, which has independently devised an entire system covering war, trade, and just about anything else you can think of. This takes place entirely on the forums (mostly in "International Incidents"), and is role-played.

Many people have asked about the possibility of a more sophisticated version of NationStates, with trade, military conflicts, and more. This does sound cool, but I haven't decided yet if I want to do that. It would be a lot of work, and I'd have to charge people to play it. But it's possible.
[/color]
this was copied directly from the FAQ page... The fact is that nowhere does it say that such a change is not possible.. also the last paragraph states that Mr. Barry has indeed thought about possibilities like these

Max also states that you can't make him add war to the game. Read below your copied text.

I wasnt able to find the text that you are talking about... I may just be missing it... could you post it...???

[Weylara]

I've had enough. You people can argue all you like, and I sort of agree with some of the things that are being said here, but in the end, this'll fizzle out. Kudos to you, mate, for trying, but a large percentage of this thread's contributors disagree with your idea, so therefore, the same would apply to the general community of NS, unless, through extraordinary luck, all the people who would disagree are on this thread. But I digress. If this takes off, TG me with a "shame I was right".

Cheers

[Weylara]

"It would require me to spend so much time rewriting game code that I wouldn't be able to pursue my real passion, which is earning enough money to buy food, and staying sane."

-FAQs

P.S. Who are we to ask him to do that for us?

[Biteme]

I would absolutely disagree. First the fact that you claimed that the idea is "poorly fleshed out" is a rash judgment...

Umm ... no ... it's based on its failure to consider its practicality.

a question i would like YOU to answer is simply this... WHAT in essence is wrong with the system I proposed...??? ...

I already have answered that, as have several others. Answer how you intend to have a reasonable war simulation without a map and we can move on... dooes each country just have a total military size and you go back and forth with a random number generator determining how many have died? You claim I have made a rash judgement that your system is not fleshed out, but you have yet to explain how one can simulate conflict with no geographic information.

Besides that it is not feasible in this specific situation. I would like you to imagine it did work... that the system was in place...
tell me.. what kind of problems could there be. BTW a map is not nessecary...
for one thing you could base it on the regions etc...

...so wars would only be between regions in your plan? Actually, that doesn't really help much, there are still hundreds of regions, some of which die and come into existence regularly. How does basing it on regions preclude the need for a map anyway? The problem is smaller than with individual nations but still exists ... and I'm not sure people would be particularly interested in a system that required you to go to war by regions, not individually.

and also... wars are not only confined to land... ever heard of seas and the air..????
those dont really need maps for every nation to have access to them

...so your simulation would only include sea battles in open ocean or air battles over neutral terriroty? That seems kind of boring and incomplete, although much more implementable. How can you have any possibility of any interesting or fun simulation without some sort of map? Oh, I know - RPing, like what NS does now. Unless you have any examples of war simulations without any maps. Your last list included board games that were based on a map. Do you have any games that would help us visualize the sort of system you propose? I have trouble visualizing Risk with no gameboard... It's hard to visualize the end result of your idea when there are fundamental elements completely missing. Plus, your examples don't seem to correspond with what you really have in mind. Considering all the counterexamples you have provided and the frequent changes in your concepts, I don't see how you can take offense at my comment that your idea was poorly fleshed out. You are being defensive and not really attempting to give a coherent response actually addressing people's points. Try to shift to that mindset, and perhaps your idea can be made into something worthwhile.

[Gal Seren Roan]

"It would require me to spend so much time rewriting game code that I wouldn't be able to pursue my real passion, which is earning enough money to buy food, and staying sane."

-FAQs

P.S. Who are we to ask him to do that for us?

`

well said about the had enough...and the real passion..
I MUST agree...this whole reaction has basically really pissed me off at this point... so im thinking about going to bed ... getting up tomorrow ... going to work and forgetting this whole crappy thread full of closed minded massive nation hotshots...I had forgotten why I left back when I had a massive country... It was because of the arrogant selfcentered people that were my nations peers and also because of peoples inability to accept change...

[Weylara]

Listen to yourself. You are being defensive. Always have to have the last word.

Name just one of these hotshot nations. I have a terrible sneaking suspicion that they'll all happen to be disagreeing with you.

[Gal Seren Roan]

I would absolutely disagree. First the fact that you claimed that the idea is "poorly fleshed out" is a rash judgment...

Umm ... no ... it's based on its failure to consider its practicality.

a question i would like YOU to answer is simply this... WHAT in essence is wrong with the system I proposed...??? ...

I already have answered that, as have several others. Answer how you intend to have a reasonable war simulation without a map and we can move on... dooes each country just have a total military size and you go back and forth with a random number generator determining how many have died? You claim I have made a rash judgement that your system is not fleshed out, but you have yet to explain how one can simulate conflict with no geographic information.

Besides that it is not feasible in this specific situation. I would like you to imagine it did work... that the system was in place...
tell me.. what kind of problems could there be. BTW a map is not nessecary...
for one thing you could base it on the regions etc...

...so wars would only be between regions in your plan? Actually, that doesn't really help much, there are still hundreds of regions, some of which die and come into existence regularly. How does basing it on regions preclude the need for a map anyway? The problem is smaller than with individual nations but still exists ... and I'm not sure people would be particularly interested in a system that required you to go to war by regions, not individually.

and also... wars are not only confined to land... ever heard of seas and the air..????
those dont really need maps for every nation to have access to them

...so your simulation would only include sea battles in open ocean or air battles over neutral terriroty? That seems kind of boring and incomplete, although much more implementable. How can you have any possibility of any interesting or fun simulation without some sort of map? Oh, I know - RPing, like what NS does now. Unless you have any examples of war simulations without any maps. Your last list included board games that were based on a map. Do you have any games that would help us visualize the sort of system you propose? I have trouble visualizing Risk with no gameboard... It's hard to visualize the end result of your idea when there are fundamental elements completely missing. Plus, your examples don't seem to correspond with what you really have in mind. Considering all the counterexamples you have provided and the frequent changes in your concepts, I don't see how you can take offense at my comment that your idea was poorly fleshed out. You are being defensive and not really attempting to give a coherent response actually addressing people's points. Try to shift to that mindset, and perhaps your idea can be made into something worthwhile.

you have basically taken everything I said out of context. I sincerely doubt that you even read the entire proposal. And you did NOT answer my question... I said IMAGINE.. i know its hard to do in your little closed minded existance that it did work ... give me a CONCRETE example of why the system I laid down (the part I laid down... not the part you are imagining i laid down ... the part I laid down... the different points ... the reasons set out as to why those rules i developled were necessary ... would not work IF the host of such a system could support it...??????

[Gal Seren Roan]

Listen to yourself. You are being defensive. Always have to have the last word.

Name just one of these hotshot nations. I have a terrible sneaking suspicion that they'll all happen to be disagreeing with you.

Uhhh HELLO
yeah it would be one of the nations that is disagreeing with me... are you some sort of Rocket scientist... cause that was a tough one to figure out.... They wouldnt be closeminded if they were willing to think about the ways it COULD be done instead of finding all the reasons why it cant be done when most of you never read the WHOLE thing... and I KNOW you didnt all read it cuase you asked some really stupid questions that were already answered in the ORIGINAL post. btw thought you had had enough.. why are you even still on this thread...

[Reploid Productions]

you have basically taken everything I said out of context. I sincerely doubt that you even read the entire proposal. And you did NOT answer my question... I said IMAGINE.. i know its hard to do in your little closed minded existance that it did work ... give me a CONCRETE example of why the system I laid down (the part I laid down... not the part you are imagining i laid down ... the part I laid down... the different points ... the reasons set out as to why those rules i developled were necessary ... would not work IF the host of such a system could support it...??????

Bolding mine. Okay, time to back off and let tempers cool. Gal Seren Roan, flaming isn't cool. Nobody's insulting you personally, they've been debating the merits of your idea, including why they don't think it would work or why they think it's otherwise not viable. You're letting yourself get worked up way too much here.

I really recommend you walk away from the computer for a little while and calm down. Go play a game, or go for a walk, or something. You're getting entirely too defensive here and I'd rather not have to hand out official warnings or short term forum bans, kay?

[Gal Seren Roan]

you have basically taken everything I said out of context. I sincerely doubt that you even read the entire proposal. And you did NOT answer my question... I said IMAGINE.. i know its hard to do in your little closed minded existance that it did work ... give me a CONCRETE example of why the system I laid down (the part I laid down... not the part you are imagining i laid down ... the part I laid down... the different points ... the reasons set out as to why those rules i developled were necessary ... would not work IF the host of such a system could support it...??????

Bolding mine. Okay, time to back off and let tempers cool. Gal Seren Roan, flaming isn't cool. Nobody's insulting you personally, they've been debating the merits of your idea, including why they don't think it would work or why they think it's otherwise not viable. You're letting yourself get worked up way too much here.

I really recommend you walk away from the computer for a little while and calm down. Go play a game, or go for a walk, or something. You're getting entirely too defensive here and I'd rather not have to hand out official warnings or short term forum bans, kay?

Im actually not really that mad... I agree that my terminology was a bit strong there... I simply didnt appreciate the statement that the idea was not well thought through ... because if implemented in the right setting it could work.. I do need to apologize for a few of the terms I used for certain people... so .. Im sorry.. I still hold my position.. which btw is not so far from what you folks have been saying lately... which is maybe it wont work here... but dont tell me it cannot work anywhere.. With that... once again I apologize for the name-calling... and would like to whish everyone here a good evening ... day ... night ... etc... Please don't think that I am a Monster ... LOL I know it reaaaally seems like it but ... I reaally am not... once again sorry...

[Gal Seren Roan]

To be quite honest ... I just have been feeling like crap lately... so when i work a long time on the logistics of how to balance military strength with older/more powerful countries and newer countries... and then got basically really lucky (got nothing but negative (a few exceptions) resoponses..) I sorta flipped out... Not an exuse... I have no exuse... it was wrong... its just the reason.. anyway... goodluck... and try to forget my jerkiness... normally I never fly off like that... so I really am sorry...

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Ok. Having read through the thread so far, here's my thoughts - hopefully not discounted simply because I'm a longstanding player, which seems to have ruffled some feathers or some such here ...

I'm a role-player, and hence biased towards the freedom that comes of rp'ing your nation, rather than having the game run the numbers for you. While I can appreciate the fairness that could come of hard numbers being used in-game, such as I can do on my account in another game elsewhere (fleets are built, attacks are made, and what level you have your tech at comes into account), I'm not certain how it would all fit in here without 'forcing' players to accept certain tech levels across the board, or limiting interactions between players because of tech level enforcements (for an extreme example: cavemen vs space aliens), or making a really huge coding headache for one of the folks who donate their time to keeping us entertained.

Yes, many a bitchfest in the past could have been avoided if - and only if - such a thing could be fairly and easily accomplished: That being 'every nation builds at whatever rate the game allows' + 'choices affect your building' + 'little guys don't get automatically eaten up by big guys' + 'tech levels work realistically' etc. Everyone operating under the same system would likely eliminate a lot of the godmoding that goes on as well. However, while nice in theory, I'm not sure, as explained above, that it could be logically implemented.

Regional wars are already doable through Gameplay, if I'm not mistaken. Raiding/Invading/Defending and such, yes? The game has already been tailored to work with this particular phenomenon, which while not originally a part of the game, quickly became a good chunk of it to a lot of players. There's nothing stopping one from participating in any of that, and there are checks in place to prevent wholesale chaos. Whether some like said checks or not.

Personally, all technicalities aside, I prefer the freedom that comes of rp'ing out my nation completely, as I see fit - which includes military - and any resulting wars that may happen on account of actions I, or my allies, take. Its part of the challenge, you see. Some of us do not go around looking for a reason to get our guns off, so to speak - which may also be considered 'realistic' to a degree, no? Honestly, what nation irl can go around starting or participating in a new war every other week, and get away with it?

As for some of the accusations getting tossed around - no, not everyone immediately dismisses a post/comment/idea just because the nation's founding date is newer. Most of us know that while longevity may help with game knowledge, we're all individuals with opinions and ideas, and one never knows if the person posting has other older nations to boot. You'll always have someone out there somewhere who loudly dismisses a newer player/newly established nation, but one can't lump everyone into that group given the civility that most posts here have shown.

Just because some of us have been around a while doesn't mean we're close-minded or 'hotshots'. Some have just had more experience with the changes the game has undergone, and may just have seen similar suggestions or arguments in the past, and known how they've gone. Some also understand the workings of the game rather well on account of having been involved for such a long time, and their opinions may just have some validity, without necessarily being 'unimaginative' or the like.

Anyways, maundered on enough. Hope that in some way clarifies at least this particular opinion on why in-game war control might not be the best thing to add. And if not, let me know and I'll try to winnow it down to simpler terms.