Advertisement
by Gal Seren Roan » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:18 am
by Chaos Butterflies » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:20 am
Gal Seren Roan wrote: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
by Biteme » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:25 am
Gal Seren Roan wrote:Reploid Productions wrote: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.
by Marcuslandia » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:26 am
by Gal Seren Roan » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:27 am
Chaos Butterflies wrote:Gal Seren Roan wrote: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.
by Luchsandria » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:30 am
by Gal Seren Roan » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:34 am
Marcuslandia wrote: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.
by Fabrucia » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:35 am
by Biteme » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:46 am
Gal Seren Roan wrote: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)
by Gal Seren Roan » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:51 am
Fabrucia wrote: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!!
by Valipac » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:54 am
by Gal Seren Roan » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:59 am
Biteme wrote:Gal Seren Roan wrote: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.
by Weylara » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:00 am
Gal Seren Roan wrote:Weylara wrote: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
by Gal Seren Roan » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:04 am
Weylara wrote:Gal Seren Roan wrote:Weylara wrote: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.
by Weylara » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:14 am
by Weylara » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:17 am
by Biteme » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:22 am
Gal Seren Roan wrote:I would absolutely disagree. First the fact that you claimed that the idea is "poorly fleshed out" is a rash judgment...
Gal Seren Roan wrote:a question i would like YOU to answer is simply this... WHAT in essence is wrong with the system I proposed...??? ...
Gal Seren Roan wrote: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...
Gal Seren Roan wrote: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
by Gal Seren Roan » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:22 am
Weylara wrote:"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?
by Weylara » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:27 am
by Gal Seren Roan » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:30 am
Biteme wrote:Gal Seren Roan wrote: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.Gal Seren Roan wrote: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.Gal Seren Roan wrote: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.
Gal Seren Roan wrote: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.
by Gal Seren Roan » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:35 am
Weylara wrote: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.
by Reploid Productions » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:37 am
Gal Seren Roan wrote: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...??????
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by Gal Seren Roan » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:46 am
Reploid Productions wrote:Gal Seren Roan wrote: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?
by Gal Seren Roan » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:56 am
by Dread Lady Nathicana » Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:05 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: 7 Trees, Airelle, Albithica, Ankuran, Concordare, Havl, IC-Water, New Atlantico, New Fernia, Nicemonte, Oceara, Patriums, Quentopia, Smatania, Soveriegn, TBH Commander, Wolfana
Advertisement