LeVentNoir Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 I like it. Mind if I use this for the actual game I'm making? I'll help any way I can if you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 (edited) I think its a good idea in some ways, however I think over all I am against it. I would rather RP not become just a complicated board game, and i'd rather not get to a point where we have to wait a certain period of time before our pegs can move to another slot. I can go and play ogame, risk, civilization or any number of other granstrategy games and get a much more orderly system of RP that is actually structurally set up that way. The thing I like about this game is that it is flexible and that it is generally speaking unregulated with the exception of a few matters (which are further resolved by a human judging it rather than indiscriminate rigid rules). While there should be some structure this is going way too far into the regulated side of the spectrum and is just going to make this game tedious to those who do play it, and so complex that new players will get lost. As cody said if some people wish to use this to make their movements clear and obvious that's fine but I do not wish to be forced to use it down the line. Don't take this the wrong way as I am just trying to be objective, but if this becomes the forced norm I'll start another RP. EDIT: I also don't really have a problem with all the OOC argumentation as I think it allows ultimately a fair arbitration of the disagreement to occur and if necessary has enough flexibility to let the two players make their case to a GM. Despite everyone saying that there is heavy bias I happen to disagree and don't think the GM's would have such an emotional investment in an RP of all things that would push them to compromise their obligation to be objective. Perhaps we may disagree with their rulings at times but that doesn't make it overt, pre-meditated bias. Trying to force this game which has previously had little regulation into a heavily regulated system with a series of rigid rules and a predictable system of war will mean that a lot of the creativity in nations and units will have to be limited if not ruled out entirely in order to ensure the system put in place will be consistent. I mean how can one persons ICBM with MIRV conventional explosives vs another persons ICBM with an air-burst bomb be factored into the system. While they have very diffrent functions there is no way for such a diffrence to be recognized (and even if you could recognize that how do you reconcile the diffrence between that and another random form of ordinance that someone thought up). Edited April 11, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 I support BaronUberstein's proposal as an optional addition to CNRP. Sargun is right, people cry bias no matter what. You can't get by it. I'm either for complete regulation, to make it almost like a strategy game, or no regulation at all. We can't sit on the fence like this.If that’s the case why bother complicating things? We can always go be to the old preCNRP freeform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 I support this. It will make it more interesting and fun. I'll gladly have a test war to test this system out Also shouldn't you have colours for bunkers, bases, nuclear silo's etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted April 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 I think its a good idea in some ways, however I think over all I am against it. I would rather RP not become just a complicated board game, and i'd rather not get to a point where we have to wait a certain period of time before our pegs can move to another slot. I can go and play ogame, risk, civilization or any number of other granstrategy games and get a much more orderly system of RP that is actually structurally set up that way. The thing I like about this game is that it is flexible and that it is generally speaking unregulated with the exception of a few matters (which are further resolved by a human judging it rather than indiscriminate rigid rules). While there should be some structure this is going way too far into the regulated side of the spectrum and is just going to make this game tedious to those who do play it, and so complex that new players will get lost. As cody said if some people wish to use this to make their movements clear and obvious that's fine but I do not wish to be forced to use it down the line. Don't take this the wrong way as I am just trying to be objective, but if this becomes the forced norm I'll start another RP.EDIT: I also don't really have a problem with all the OOC argumentation as I think it allows ultimately a fair arbitration of the disagreement to occur and if necessary has enough flexibility to let the two players make their case to a GM. Despite everyone saying that there is heavy bias I happen to disagree and don't think the GM's would have such an emotional investment in an RP of all things that would push them to compromise their obligation to be objective. Perhaps we may disagree with their rulings at times but that doesn't make it overt, pre-meditated bias. Trying to force this game which has previously had little regulation into a heavily regulated system with a series of rigid rules and a predictable system of war will mean that a lot of the creativity in nations and units will have to be limited if not ruled out entirely in order to ensure the system put in place will be consistent. I mean how can one persons ICBM with MIRV conventional explosives vs another persons ICBM with an air-burst bomb be factored into the system. While they have very diffrent functions there is no way for such a diffrence to be recognized (and even if you could recognize that how do you reconcile the diffrence between that and another random form of ordinance that someone thought up). I wouldn't be forced, it's an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yort92 Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Sounds like it would be fun! I'd be willing to have a test vs. the Atlantian Federation (who has offered too). Our border would be easy to draw on a map too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkantos Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Not to mention our strength is pretty close, which should make for some good battles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 How about a free-for-all with Alvonia's new Minnisota territory after the first one to test a multi-front war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raritan Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 (edited) Sounds like it would be fun! I'd be willing to have a test vs. the Atlantian Federation (who has offered too). Our border would be easy to draw on a map too. I don't think it'd be too hard to add myself into that war-game also. We're all really close in NS. Edited April 12, 2009 by Raritan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkantos Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 Well, I've thought up a scenario for this wargame that we've planned. A part of Virginia(That odd bit that looks weird on the World Map.) Is claimed to be part of the Atlantian Federation, but the Tennessee Federation also claims the area, so it moves in with military to secure it. Ardoria, seeing an opportunity, trys to claim the rest of Virginia while Atlantian Troops are busy dealing with Tennessean troops in western Virginia. All three come into conflict near Marion, Virginia, Atlantian Federation.(This would be where we would try out the new system.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 I wouldn't be forced, it's an option. If that's the case then I would also be fine with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted April 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 Forcing it would be absurd, mainly because I'm lazy and don't feel like making many unique maps. I may try to restrict this to medium to small scale wars unless someone else here knows how to use sketchup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 Well, I've thought up a scenario for this wargame that we've planned. A part of Virginia(That odd bit that looks weird on the World Map.) Is claimed to be part of the Atlantian Federation, but the Tennessee Federation also claims the area, so it moves in with military to secure it. Ardoria, seeing an opportunity, trys to claim the rest of Virginia while Atlantian Troops are busy dealing with Tennessean troops in western Virginia. All three come into conflict near Marion, Virginia, Atlantian Federation.(This would be where we would try out the new system.) So basically, a one-on-one-one-one scenario? @Uberstein: Or it could be used on a smaller scale to RP skirmishes and special forces operations, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 Forcing it would be absurd, mainly because I'm lazy and don't feel like making many unique maps. I may try to restrict this to medium to small scale wars unless someone else here knows how to use sketchup. I know a bit, its a nice program, but I prefer more powerful tools such as solidworks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkantos Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 So basically, a one-on-one-one-one scenario?@Uberstein: Or it could be used on a smaller scale to RP skirmishes and special forces operations, too. More like one on one on one, a free for all between three nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 I'd be willing to do a non-canon war. What happened to me, Arkantos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raritan Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 What happened to me, Arkantos? You're a bit far from the action. The three of us (Tennessee, Atlantian Federation, and Ardoria) all border each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 True... but then again this is non-canon, so realistically I could border the three of you. I am planning to take Iowa IC anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raritan Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 True...but then again this is non-canon, so realistically I could border the three of you. I am planning to take Iowa IC anyway... We're basing it on the canon geography and all of us are about 3-4 times your NS. With the 3 of us near the same NS, it can test the fairness of the system as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 More like one on one on one, a free for all between three nations. That's what I said, one-on-one-on-one. I didn;t think I needed to be more clear... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkantos Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Oh. Sorry. I had just woken up and was a bit out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 One thing with the colours. I'm colourblind. Another thing. Its not the movement, its not the soldiers, its not the information on the tech levels or anything. Its the people that control them. We are always going to find something to cry about and we are always going to try to win. The fact remains noone is happy unless it is planned out. Either way, I say its a good optional idea. I however would like the addition of alternating turns/posts for all wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 One thing with the colours. I'm colourblind. Damn you and your lack of seeing only a few colors on the color scale! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanis777 Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 I know a bit, its a nice program, but I prefer more powerful tools such as solidworks. mmm, I had a 150 day trial run of solidworks for a college class for beginning CAD. Yeah, that was an awesome program. Also, I would be down to test this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkantos Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 One thing with the colours. I'm colourblind.Another thing. Its not the movement, its not the soldiers, its not the information on the tech levels or anything. Its the people that control them. We are always going to find something to cry about and we are always going to try to win. The fact remains noone is happy unless it is planned out. Either way, I say its a good optional idea. I however would like the addition of alternating turns/posts for all wars. Shades of Gray for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.