Rules discussion.   Posted by Timeless.Group: 0
Timeless
 GM, 11 posts
 Time takes everything
 But legends stay forever
Thu 12 Sep 2019
at 17:08
Re: Rules discussion
I mostly need advice/feedback on how it looks so far for pbp game specifically. As I mentioned in IC, I never gmed pbp games, and once I started laying all the rules for pbp format I feel like I need to explain and mention so much that it might actually be a turn-off for people who wanted a free-form kind of game.

For me personally, it already looks too rules intensive. I've been wasting a lot of time editing and cutting out basically.

As for 2. Yeah, I'm holding it. Not ready to accept players, only people who want to help set this up for now.

how much experience you have with actually gming pbp?
Timeless
 GM, 13 posts
 Time takes everything
 But legends stay forever
Thu 12 Sep 2019
at 18:45
Re: Rules discussion
Also, I'll post turn explanation. Action example, unit example, and civ sheet example a bit later. But are there any examples/explanation people might need?
Second
 player, 3 posts
Thu 12 Sep 2019
at 20:39
Re: Rules discussion
Timeless:
I mostly need advice/feedback on how it looks so far for pbp game specifically. As I mentioned in IC, I never gmed pbp games, and once I started laying all the rules for pbp format I feel like I need to explain and mention so much that it might actually be a turn-off for people who wanted a free-form kind of game.

For me personally, it already looks too rules intensive. I've been wasting a lot of time editing and cutting out basically.


It's always going to be a balance. Too few rules and you have to put up with lots of people saying "can I do so-and-so?" Or, worse, the type of player who wants to do something bigger than they should be able to do, and then they pout and say "but your rules didn't say anything about me not being able to do that..." Too MANY rules and yes, it's possible to risk Rule Overwhelm.

I prefer more rules than less, so as to avoid the first set of problems, but writing the rules really clearly so that as few as possible are needed.

Timeless:
As for 2. Yeah, I'm holding it. Not ready to accept players, only people who want to help set this up for now.


Understood


Timeless:
how much experience you have with actually gming pbp?


Been doing quite a bit of it (GMing) on RPol for a couple of years or so now...



Examples of moves/turns/whatever are a good idea... Put that sort of thing in a separate thread...

This message was last edited by the player at 01:47, Fri 13 Sept 2019.

Timeless
 GM, 15 posts
 Time takes everything
 But legends stay forever
Fri 13 Sep 2019
at 02:06
Re: Rules discussion
Second:
It's always going to be a balance. Too few rules and you have to put up with lots of people saying "can I do so-and-so?" Or, worse, the type of player who wants to do something bigger than they should be able to do, and then they pout and say "but your rules didn't say anything about me not being able to do that... Too MANY rules and yes, it's possible to risk Rule Overwhelm.

I prefer more rules than less, so as to avoid the first set of problems, but writing the rules really clearly so that as few as possible are needed.


I really disagree with this. I want the least amount of rules possible. Most information I already posted is there NOT as a limiter, but just to help people understand my way of thinking. For example, I am strongly considering cutting out unit stats completely. They will still be in game, but just not burdening the rules. Maybe also removing some action type.

For me its more of a balance between strategy (where rules are really important for balance purposes and to avoid misunderstandings) and RPG (where really, rules are just part of world setup, and are mainly there to HELP people make plays).

God games are my ideal. Only one page of rules, and I haven't seen a lot of people complaining or asking what the can and can not do... maybe they do it in private? But really, all god games I've seen and participated in were going smoothly and they really looked like players knew what they were doing.



Another question to all people helping me with a setup:

God games have a pretty neat rule for gods (players) not being able to participate in the game for a period of time: they go into stasis in a form of an artifact, which can still be played with and which still holds some significance for any of the god's creations.

I obviously can't do something like this in a non-magic game, but I really want something similar. Any ideas, thoughts?

This message was last edited by the GM at 02:07, Fri 13 Sept 2019.

Second
 player, 4 posts
Fri 13 Sep 2019
at 12:12
Re: Rules discussion
Timeless:
Second:
It's always going to be a balance. Too few rules and you have to put up with lots of people saying "can I do so-and-so?" Or, worse, the type of player who wants to do something bigger than they should be able to do, and then they pout and say "but your rules didn't say anything about me not being able to do that... Too MANY rules and yes, it's possible to risk Rule Overwhelm.

I prefer more rules than less, so as to avoid the first set of problems, but writing the rules really clearly so that as few as possible are needed.


I really disagree with this. I want the least amount of rules possible.


Well-- as I'd just said-- so do I.

Timeless:
Most information I already posted is there NOT as a limiter, but just to help people understand my way of thinking. For example, I am strongly considering cutting out unit stats completely. They will still be in game, but just not burdening the rules. Maybe also removing some action type.


Sounds okay to me.

Timeless:
For me its more of a balance between strategy (where rules are really important for balance purposes and to avoid misunderstandings) and RPG (where really, rules are just part of world setup, and are mainly there to HELP people make plays).

God games are my ideal. Only one page of rules, and I haven't seen a lot of people complaining or asking what the can and can not do... maybe they do it in private? But really, all god games I've seen and participated in were going smoothly and they really looked like players knew what they were doing.


It's true that most god games I've been in, and run, have been just like that.

Except for the one I run right now, which just had a player behave so badly that I threw him out yesterday. (It helped my decision that he kept pushing the game to inch toward Mature when it is in fact General. That wasn't the biggest factor-- his attitude was the biggest factor-- but it helped.)

I've asked people (though I've rarely had to) if perhaps they just want to leave, because they're clearly just getting frustrated with the experience (although if they don't want to, I've always been fine with trying to help resolve the frustration), but this was the first time ever I just had to kick someone out.

It just depends on the players.




Timeless:
Another question to all people helping me with a setup:

God games have a pretty neat rule for gods (players) not being able to participate in the game for a period of time: they go into stasis in a form of an artifact, which can still be played with and which still holds some significance for any of the god's creations.

I obviously can't do something like this in a non-magic game, but I really want something similar. Any ideas, thoughts?


In the form of an artifact? That's a new one on me.

The way the god games I've seen (and run) work has been that deities accrue power slowly, like 1 point worth of action on certain days (so that the GM doesn't get overwhelmed).

This "artifact" idea of which you speak is new to me...
Timeless
 GM, 22 posts
 Time takes everything
 But legends stay forever
Fri 13 Sep 2019
at 14:21
Re: Rules discussion
Second:
In the form of an artifact? That's a new one on me.

The way the god games I've seen (and run) work has been that deities accrue power slowly, like 1 point worth of action on certain days (so that the GM doesn't get overwhelmed).

This "artifact" idea of which you speak is new to me...


Hm, maybe its too old school already? I haven't played godgames for a looong time. But I clearly remember that stasis was always in form of an artifact. Stasis artifact, and both the player leaving and gm could use the artifact for in-game stuff. I even remember some gms required players to add a description of their stasis artifact in rtjs.

here's old godgame rule about stasis:

quote:
STASIS

* If for some reason you will absent from play, you can enter STASIS where you will not receive turns as the days pass (as if you were saving them) but you will not be destroyed either.

#10. STASIS is available for those who have real world concerns that prevent them from signing online and making a one-sentence post for periods of longer than 3 days. Just inform the GM so he is aware and can plan accordingly.

*STASIS turns you, a GOD or GODDESS, into some tangible object or ARTIFACT (see ITEMS OF POWER below) that cannot be destroyed but is none-the-less real to the beings and things of Creation. You may define the appearance of this artifact (it has only the POWER to PRESERVE your deity; it simply IS), but AO will decide where it is located at the beginning of your STASIS. It can be moved, stolen, whatever. This impacts none of the gods per say, but will affect all mortals who perceive it. It will ALWAYS appear very special and may draw the interest of beings, especially those who worship you. This artifact however ceases to exist as a reliquary once you have re-entered play, but perhaps the hollow-chamber that once housed your essence may remain... it's your call.


Anyway, we can't have it here, but I really want something similar. Some kind of stasis option for a nation to stay somewhat intact and in-game while player absent.
Second
 player, 5 posts
Fri 13 Sep 2019
at 14:48
Re: Rules discussion
Timeless:
Hm, maybe its too old school already? I haven't played godgames for a looong time. But I clearly remember that stasis was always in form of an artifact. Stasis artifact, and both the player leaving and gm could use the artifact for in-game stuff. I even remember some gms required players to add a description of their stasis artifact in rtjs.

Anyway, we can't have it here, but I really want something similar. Some kind of stasis option for a nation to stay somewhat intact and in-game while player absent.


Makes sense to me... Ah... in Civilization (the one I've played most is the old Civilization: Revolution, which I still have on my very old iPod Touch), I suppose the equivalent of the Artifact would be the Capitol, or the actual Palace...?

(Although (in Civilization: Revolution) if someone captured the capitol/palace, the civilization that happened to could still keep fighting from its other cities, as I recall...)

This message was last edited by the player at 14:49, Fri 13 Sept 2019.

Day
 player, 1 post
Fri 13 Sep 2019
at 15:12
Re: Rules discussion
Hi ya'll!

Artifact Stasis: I remember this, definitely. Though I never saw it used, which is why I mostly ignored it the last time I ran a god game of my own.

I think the biggest issue with it came down to it being another in a long line of responsibilities for the GM to manage, which I think is one of the key 'game killers' when it comes to God Games. GMs already have a massive enough responsibility with trying to keep their lore straight while also giving everyone ample attention with each post, and adding 'meta management' ontop of that is more than most can handle.

While enthusiasm is high and ACT complexity is low, the games feel healthy, but as more and more ACTs pile onto each other, and as the initial excitement of a new game wears off, GMs tend to burn out quickly.

Civ Games: I might have already mentioned this in the Proposals thread, but I have a lot of experience joining civ games here on RPOL and watching them rapidly dissolve. It almost always comes down to what I alluded to in the Artifact response: GM burnout.

I think you're on the right track in regards to keeping the rules simple. In addition to that, I think it's also worth considering how to manage complexity as the game progresses. In my mind, the health and enthusiasm of the GM is one of the most important considerations. Even with their simple rules, I've rarely seen a god game last more than two-four months, so there's certainly room for improvement.

Anywho... I'll look into reading what you've put down for rules so far later today, or possibly this weekend. If I see any red flags or if I have any ideas, I'll be sure to note them.
Timeless
 GM, 23 posts
 Time takes everything
 But legends stay forever
Fri 13 Sep 2019
at 16:30
Re: Rules discussion
In reply to Second (msg # 11):

nah, I am not looking for exact replacement, it should be something historically correct, maybe some form of concept.
Right now, the only thing I can think of is The Great Depression (that one of 1930s), or Europe's Dark Ages. So, if a player expects to absent for some period of time due to rl, their nation would descend into dark age (people are gloomy, economy and science in stagnation, leaders are disinterested and distanced from the rule). But civilization still exists and can be interacted with. Sounds plausible and in theme with player's inability to shepherd their nation?
And I can give a couple of "recovery" actions to a player, once they come back, to kind of help their nation overcome the dark ages.



Hello Day!

Thank you folks for your time, participation and interest. I guess, I should update Pre game players READ THIS! to make it a bit more clear what kind of help I am mostly looking for right now. I'll bump it in a bit.
Second
 player, 6 posts
Fri 13 Sep 2019
at 17:12
Re: Rules discussion
Timeless:
In reply to Second (msg # 11):

nah, I am not looking for exact replacement, it should be something historically correct, maybe some form of concept.
Right now, the only thing I can think of is The Great Depression (that one of 1930s), or Europe's Dark Ages. So, if a player expects to absent for some period of time due to rl, their nation would descend into dark age (people are gloomy, economy and science in stagnation, leaders are disinterested and distanced from the rule). But civilization still exists and can be interacted with. Sounds plausible and in theme with player's inability to shepherd their nation?
And I can give a couple of "recovery" actions to a player, once they come back, to kind of help their nation overcome the dark ages.


Ah, like that. Yeah, that's better.
Hour
 player, 1 post
Sat 14 Sep 2019
at 10:06
Re: Rules discussion
Reading over the rules, I have a few questions:
  • Is the Action Economy one that is sustainable for you as the GM? How many Actions per Turn per Player is too much?
  • Are you aiming for symmetric or asymmetric situations for us to resolve?
  • Are you aiming for balanced nations or will you permit an efficient or lucky player to dominate?
  • Is there randomness?

Timeless
 GM, 25 posts
 Time takes everything
 But legends stay forever
Sat 14 Sep 2019
at 13:04
Re: Rules discussion
In reply to Hour (msg # 15):

Well, some of that would be a little bit more obvious once I post rtj rules, and examples thread (should have done it already, so that's coming soon...)

1. Yes, I am a little bit concerned about this. Here are some thoughts:

Only nation actions are gonna have big effect and require a lot of GM's attention. BUT if my players are gonna be committed and post several paragraphs of text per every action, I would be more than pleased to spend my time satisfying their desire to build strong stories (which, in my experience, which is based on godgames, happens extremely rare). In which case, the game gonna slow down, so that's a fair concern on your side. But if that would really happen, I guess I'll just have to take away some amount of actions (that's why all my rules are just guidelines. We WILL be changing them during the course of the game, I am almost sure of it.)

If you want my estimation:

2 nation actions - never gonna change (unless I'll get like 6 or more extremely talented writers for my cast of players, in which case I might drop this to 1. Again, I do not expect this to happen, based on my player experience. I honestly want this a LOT! But I've been gming for quite some time already and I know you can't keep your expectations too high, so...).

1-2 expedition action per stale phase - not a lot of work, unless players really want to commit to it. And I'm actually thinking of removing this (want to explore, just spend your nation actions, right?)

1 leader action - mostly a role-play and supporting action. Really really do NOT want to remove this. Imho this one should make the game different from dull strategy and more like interesting RPG.

1 espionage action - also either a role-play or more like expedition action (expedition into another player's territory). And I also don't want to remove this.

2+ military - strongly considering dropping these down. They don't add much to rp element, unless, again players want to commit. I was planning to use military actions as purely strategic element, not rp element, and as such, was not planning to waste too much of my time on updating these.


2. Not sure what you mean by symmetric and asymmetric, if you are talking about equally difficult events for different players, then asymmetric, or I would even say chaotic. Someone might get peaceful times while other player might have disaster after disaster striking their nation.


3. Imbalanced for sure. BUT dominate? ..oh, you have no idea, hell no! Its gonna be progressively harder to stay on top. Prosperity and success by default will be more detrimental for players specifically. Prosperity means corruption, success and luck means gluttony and decadence. And those mean less control over your actions. Sometimes, player on a losing side would find themselves in a more beneficial position than player who actually won a war.

That's why, btw a player who might get a lot of peaceful times (as aforementioned in reply #2) might be the one in unfavorable position.

It was also in the rules about units (I've cut it out to shorten them, but its still in the game): units on a loser side will get more experience than winning side.

The game should all be about rise and fall. In fact, I wanted to name it "Rise and fall", but it just goes exactly as Civilization series (the digital game) right now, so I decided to use another name...
And it is more about falling after a rise, than rising after a fall. XD



4. Actions outcome always decided by gm (I am not gonna be rolling dices ever, when it comes to actions). Which you might still consider to be a random element. And success rate will be my guestimation base on, first and foremost!, how good a story of action is.

But some aspects of the game are random, yes. Combat is gonna be simulated by me (off line, sorry, I am too use to doing this old-fashioned way), and that means some dice rolling. I also got a stale phase random events list, which I was planning to post, but again decided not to, to keep rules simple and not overload players with unnecessary info. So that is also dice rolling.
Second
 player, 7 posts
Sat 14 Sep 2019
at 13:45
Re: Rules discussion

Is there a tech limit? I'm sure it'll go from stone age to bronze age to iron age to steel... to... riflemen... to... artillery...? What about beyond that? Cold War? Marines with bulletproof body armor and night-vision goggles in SUVs? Stealth jets? Beyond? Future tech?

I wouldn't mind there being some sort of cap on things, so that tech never moves past 1944 (no nukes).

Or... will there be some sort of massive EMP bomb or biotech plague (or both) that RETURNS everyone to the stone age, and the half-forgotten fragments of former nations will have to start all over...?

A second, but related question is... is this game "winnable?"

A third, very related question is... is this game "losable?"

If one or more other nations/cultures take all your cities and stuff... are you done? Can you start over with a new nation? (Maybe the biggest nation suffers a civil war and splits...?)
Timeless
 GM, 26 posts
 Time takes everything
 But legends stay forever
Sat 14 Sep 2019
at 14:02
Re: Rules discussion
1. Actually, I never plan this beyond medieval, was planning to talk about this once we would actually get into medieval. I am ok going to renaissance with steampower and early gunpowder weapons, but modern age is a bit concerning, mainly because politics, propaganda, and cultural assimilation becomes really hard to control/navigate.

So I wouldn't mind a cap too. Another subject to discuss, but I'll do it with players once we start the game.

2. No, game is not winnable, its in the rules btw.

3. No. Also in the rules.

That's why I have not listed the game as strategy btw, cause RPOL description for strategy game is something I am strongly against and want to avoid at all cost.
Second
 player, 8 posts
Sat 14 Sep 2019
at 14:08
Re: Rules discussion
Timeless:
1. Actually, I never plan this beyond medieval, was planning to talk about this once we would actually get into medieval.


Ah HA! Yeah, I'm fine with that

Timeless:
I am ok going to renaissance with steampower and early gunpowder weapons


Oh yeah let's never move past steampunk as the absolute limit. I don't want nukes.


Timeless:
2. No, game is not winnable, its in the rules btw.


I'm not exactly surprised, and I also approve...

So here's another question.

Will there ever be a limit to exploration? Or will there always be a new frontier?


Timeless:
3. No. Also in the rules.

That's why I have not listed the game as strategy btw, cause RPOL description for strategy game is something I am strongly against and want to avoid at all cost.


I'm fine with it not being lose-able... but then what will happen if someone loses all their cities etc.?

Civil war?
Timeless
 GM, 27 posts
 Time takes everything
 But legends stay forever
Sat 14 Sep 2019
at 14:27
Re: Rules discussion
Should have expanded my thoughts a little bit more, but you post too fast XD

As for end game, my plan was to finish it in godgame-fashion with a big story of what happened to the world and what Great people and events were actually most memorable and worthy of legends (like Troy, for example). I also want to gm another similar game, but with magic, so I was not planning any loops/infinite gameplay.

Second:
Will there ever be a limit to exploration? Or will there always be a new frontier?


Limit for sure. Also resources are gonna be, I should say, "unrealistically" scarce (to force players interaction.

Second:
I'm fine with it not being lose-able... but then what will happen if someone loses all their cities etc.?

Civil war?


quote:
Do not expect to "win". We are here to shape the world and write history together. No nation can be fully wiped from existence, you can enslave/kill/hunt some of them, but there will always be a portion that will survive, restart somewhere else, and most probably have their cold served revenge one day...


In other words, nothing happens XD. I am not going to artificially help players recover. Its up to a player how they are going to get out of the situation (that is also why I allow some metagaming - some situations might be really hard to figure out on your own, so you are always free to talk in ooc and ask for advices). There are some obvious outs: like partisan wars and going heavy into espionage actions, but again its all up to individual player's imagination. The only thing guaranteed is that some portion of your people (and that means you) always gonna survive, even in times of total genocide from another player.
Second
 player, 9 posts
Sat 14 Sep 2019
at 15:12
Re: Rules discussion
Timeless:
Should have expanded my thoughts a little bit more, but you post too fast XD

As for end game, my plan was to finish it in godgame-fashion with a big story of what happened to the world and what Great people and events were actually most memorable and worthy of legends (like Troy, for example). I also want to gm another similar game, but with magic, so I was not planning any loops/infinite gameplay.



Ah HA! Okay, that's cool


Timeless:
Second:
Will there ever be a limit to exploration? Or will there always be a new frontier?


Limit for sure. Also resources are gonna be, I should say, "unrealistically" scarce (to force players interaction.


Well that just makes sense, now that I know there's an endgame.


Timeless:
Second:
I'm fine with it not being lose-able... but then what will happen if someone loses all their cities etc.?

Civil war?


In other words, nothing happens XD. I am not going to artificially help players recover. Its up to a player how they are going to get out of the situation (that is also why I allow some metagaming - some situations might be really hard to figure out on your own, so you are always free to talk in ooc and ask for advices). There are some obvious outs: like partisan wars and going heavy into espionage actions, but again its all up to individual player's imagination. The only thing guaranteed is that some portion of your people (and that means you) always gonna survive, even in times of total genocide from another player.


Got it. As long as a player keeps getting points to spend, one could always drum up a Castro or Che Guevera or an Oliver Cromwell or a Toussaint L'Ouverture or an Anastasia or some other creative solution (perhaps an exiled Napoleon type who decides that now that France has fallen, it's time for him to leave Elba and start his own thing, etc....)
Week
 player, 1 post
Thu 26 Sep 2019
at 10:26
Re: Rules discussion
Timeless:
1. Actually, I never plan this beyond medieval, was planning to talk about this once we would actually get into medieval. I am ok going to renaissance with steampower and early gunpowder weapons, but modern age is a bit concerning, mainly because politics, propaganda, and cultural assimilation becomes really hard to control/navigate.


See that, unless all players begin close to one another (and, unless you limit it to a reduced part of the world ,as Civilization Board Game did, this means leaving most world unoccupied), limiting it to medieval tech (age) is limiting the contanct among them, as most such contact begun with the Modern Age (Age of Exploration, in the XVI-XVII centuries).
Day
 player, 4 posts
Thu 26 Sep 2019
at 14:46
Re: Rules discussion
I think the broad scope of the rules are sound.

The biggest quibble I have is with the military stuff. Specifically the bit about mustering army units. From experience playing space-empire games where you build individual ships, I've always felt that it never realistically reflects how militaries are built and function. Not to mention that it can take ages for a player to respond to a real threat if faced with an opponent that focused on ship production more than they did. It becomes very frustrating overall, and also becomes something of a headache to manage if you have too many ships and such a limited number of actions to take per turn.

Instead of mustering units, might I recommend an alternative?

Each nation has a militia by default, which you've already covered, and instead of raising individual units, you instead spend actions to "organize" and "give orders" to a standing army. To support this, I think each nation should have twos stats: the first representing their standing armies "readiness", which functions much like the happiness stat that all nations already have. You as a GM can then use this stat to help you figure out how effective that military might be whenever a players uses it to take an action.

The second stat would just be a flat "size" indicator, which is used to calculate the cost and overall effectiveness of that military at performing multiple functions at the same time (defending a border while putting down a rebellion in the same turn, for example).

Finally, armies should have standing doctrines and descriptions, making it a sort of special "character" in each players nation.

Army Actions

 Organize - Invest resources, conscript, and train your nations standing military.

 Set Doctrine - Used to describe how an army is thematically organized. What sorts of weapons or tactics it uses. Does it favor cavalry over infantry, for example?

 Disposition - Set an army to attack, defend, put down rebellions, or any number of other actions. The success of these actions depend on the size, doctrine, and organization level of the army.

...

All of this is just to simplify war without taking away from customization and themes, while also not burdening the GM or the players with having to manage a large number of units as the game progresses.

So each Nation might have a single block that might look something like this:

quote:
Army of the Republic
Organization: 67%
Size: 18
Doctrine: With the infantry as the backbone of its forces, and special emphasis on heavy armored men-at-arms, the Army of the Republic otherwise maintains a healthy, if less robust balance between cavalry, archers, and naval capacity.

For land battles, Republicans keep their cavalry on the flanks, while maintaining a small reserve for running-down stragglers and skirmishing. Infantry hold the center with in-depth formations that rely on large interlocking shields, while fresh troops replace tired front-liners in regular intervals. Archers support from the rear.

For naval engagements, ships focus on ramming and boarding actions, relying on marines and light infantry to seize ships while archers pepper faster ships that get too close.

Notable units in the Army of the Republic include "The Hand of Ceasar" and "The 5th Legion".

This message was last edited by the player at 17:42, Thu 26 Sept 2019.

Second
 player, 13 posts
Thu 26 Sep 2019
at 14:56
Re: Rules discussion
Day:
Each nation has a militia by default, which you've already covered, and instead of raising individual units, you instead spend actions to "organize" and "give orders" to a standing army. To support this, I think each nation should have twos stats: the first representing their standing armies "readiness", which functions much like the happiness stat that all nations already have. You as a GM can then use this stat to help you figure out how effective that military might be whenever a players uses it to take an action.

The second stat would just be a flat "size" indicator, which is used to calculate the cost and overall effectiveness of that military at performing multiple functions at the same time (defending a border while putting down a rebellion in the same turn, for example).

Army Actions

 Organize - Invest resources, conscript, and train your nations standing military.

 Set Doctrine - Used to describe how an army is thematically organized. What sorts of weapons or tactics it uses. Does it favor cavalry over infantry, for example?

 Disposition - Set an army to attack, defend, put down rebellions, or any number of other actions. The success of these actions depend on the size, doctrine, and organization level of the army.


I think your suggestion is good...
Hour
 player, 2 posts
Thu 26 Sep 2019
at 14:59
Re: Rules discussion
In reply to Day (msg # 23):

Yes, I would second this. Fatigue from too many units has been a factor in games stalling
Week
 player, 2 posts
Fri 27 Sep 2019
at 01:11
Re: Rules discussion
Some questions, let's begin for the "game board":

  1. Do you plan to use a single zone of a world ( la Civilization Gameboard) or the whole world ( la Civilization computer series)?
  2. How will the map be organized? Hexes? squares? Zones?

Week
 player, 3 posts
Fri 27 Sep 2019
at 17:59
Re: Rules discussion
Next question ,about population: will it be increased in a arithmetical (e.g. 1 pop point per 10000 people) or gemoetrical (as in traveller UWP, where the pop stat is the exponent on 10 basis) scale?

Personally, I'd like more a narithmeti cone, as it makes easier to compare (in Traveller, to give an example, a planet with pop 7 (tens of millions) would be able to colonize  thousends to planets with  a pop of 3 (thousends) without having its own stat changed...)

This message was last edited by the player at 18:03, Fri 27 Sept 2019.

Week
 player, 4 posts
Fri 27 Sep 2019
at 23:44
Re: Rules discussion
Now about units:

quote:
Mustering a military unit:
  • requires military or nation action
  • Requires access to appropriate technology
  • Requires possibility and availability of appropriate resources, tools, production capabilities...
  • Takes 1% of your population (unless otherwise ruled by GM)
  • Always costs some wealth
  • Might affect happiness of your civilization


If all units cost 1% of the population, that means a unit from a player with a population of 1 million would be 10 times larger than one of a player whose population is 100000, so, it should cost 10 times more, have attack/defense factors 10 times more, etc...

It also means that if you want to have units in 5 different places, just to defend them or for whatever reason you need, as they cannot be dispersed, youll need about 5% of your population in the military (about the maximum considered usable in war times without really affecting economy).

Id go with something similar to what Europe Universalis (board, not computer, game) use:

On it, counters represent mostly Armies, each of them with a set number of Strength Points (SPs) of Inf/Cav/Art (this one not usable at the beginning, of course) when purchased, but that can vary along the game (as losses are taken, some SPs are detached, etc). There are also smaller units, called detachments, which can be more freely organized.

If we assume that (to give an example) each SP represents about 500 warriors, this way, the army of Rome will be organized in Legions, each of 10 Inf and 1 cav SPs (historial Marian Legion) , but it could also have detachments formed by only infantry, only cavalry or mixed (in RW Rome this would represent the Auxiliary troops). The Imperium could then concentrate its troops iin a single campaign or have them dispersed along the borders, as needed.

The total number of SPs should be capped according the Population, maybe to the equivalent of 1-2% of it, and probably increasing as food/resources gathering improves (and more people can be spared from those vital tasks).

So, as you say, 1 military or Nation action plus any needed resources would give you either 1 such Armies (or whatever you want to call them) or some detachments 8as long as other requisites are met), and the attack/defense stats would depend on how many SPs the unit has.
Second
 player, 14 posts
Wed 2 Oct 2019
at 19:26
Re: Rules discussion

What would CULTURAL actions be? Nation Actions?

I'm imagining, for example, a Marx who writes a text that starts leading to actual uprisings in the nation next door...