Thread: Good games

One my main concerns when we switched from the LM to the DT region was equality. I had been one of the smaller nations and I saw first-hand what a major disadvantage that was.

Proposition

The world map is condensed into a smaller area, perhaps the size of Europe. This map is split into lots of different areas, with each one given a number. A nation can select two numbers to use when it joins. There is no further expansion, no matter how large a nation is. Here's a rough prototype map with a few regions numbered:

->Open Spoiler<-

That system is pretty good and can be effective when you want to keep this aspect of the RP simple.

The main problem I see with using that particular map is the significant difference in size between the areas. For example, 6 is significantly larger than 2, 7, 8, and 10 combined. Since, the aim is to create more equality, I think we would either have to either divide that map into equal slices or create a new map with equal divisions.

The other issue I see is caused by the fact that some of us are role playing more than one nation. Would they also be allocated two numbers?

And the final issue is that it takes away the fun of buying nations and expanding.

The main positive things I see are the equality and the closeness that you mentioned. It would be interesting to be be so close to everyone.

Additionally nation's RP population is taken as 10% of its NS population. This makes matters a little more realistic and fair (as nations like mine currently have over a billion more than most others). The national budgets would also obviously be scaled this way.

I like that idea.

The population proposal I like very much, but I can't really see how we can get any more equal than we already are. In truth, all I see is a reduction of what we have by 90%. We're still going to have inequality between nations, and in certain respects, you need that. If every single one of us had exactly the same amount of land, the same economies, the same governments, the same population, the same standing in the council, et cetera, what fun would there be to interact with each other?

Further, shrinking the map has one major drawback: expansion. Not in terms of us expanding our nations, but new people wanting to play. With a smaller map, fewer people can be accommodated, and frankly I'd like to avoid the possibility of new players getting left out just because there isn't enough space to expand. Of course, we could gradually expand the map as more people arrive, but wouldn't it just be easier to use a large map?

I like this idea.

Originally Posted by Evil

The main problem I see with using that particular map is the significant difference in size between the areas. For example, 6 is significantly larger than 2, 7, 8, and 10 combined. Since, the aim is to create more equality, I think we would either have to either divide that map into equal slices or create a new map with equal divisions.

The divisions would be evened up. That map was just a rough example of what it would look like..

Originally Posted by Evil

The other issue I see is caused by the fact that some of us are role playing more than one nation. Would they also be allocated two numbers?

We'd probably have two numbers per person to keep it sensible. I'd even consider replacing my two with one if it would simplify matters.

Originally Posted by Nuke

The population proposal I like very much, but I can't really see how we can get any more equal than we already are. In truth, all I see is a reduction of what we have by 90%. We're still going to have inequality between nations, and in certain respects, you need that. If every single one of us had exactly the same amount of land, the same economies, the same governments, the same population, the same standing in the council, et cetera, what fun would there be to interact with each other?

I agree with you, but this system still allows for as much fluidity. It simply stops everyone from being a meganation, and allows a more intimate setting.

Originally Posted by Nuke

Further, shrinking the map has one major drawback: expansion. Not in terms of us expanding our nations, but new people wanting to play. With a smaller map, fewer people can be accommodated, and frankly I'd like to avoid the possibility of new players getting left out just because there isn't enough space to expand. Of course, we could gradually expand the map as more people arrive, but wouldn't it just be easier to use a large map?

The unmodified Europe map has around fifty regions, equating to twenty-five players. As it would be split up more, we'd probably have room for forty people. If we ever get that large, we probably won't want any others to join.

Saying that, I love the old system as well, so I'll be happy either way. As the group seems split, with your blessing I'll create a poll seeing how far people want to take it.

Given the division of opinion, I think a poll would be best. My blessing is given.

"Peace be unto thee, my child...."

Dam the Isolationistic Draki were about to seize the Egypt and close down the suiz canal to all non Draki shipping. (only 80 million to go for this next step)

also why not a simpler world map (I remember the War Age of Imperialism map I submitted before with larger world regions)