Destiny: A historical RPG campaign

[unmerged(10146)]

BTW, my compliments FAL, you are so far doing a great job as GM:
- 12 players for 13 listed "major" countries already in place, 3 joining soon and 2 subs... it should be a really stable crew, something I value VERY much
- you have the highest number of posts - almost a requirement for beeing a GM (surprisingly, BiB is the second, not me )
- the first post updated promptly

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Hi.
I'd like to play with you. Need another player? I'd like a small, tiny nation in a real shithole that shall encourage RP and diplomatics, if it's not a problem. But I will of course accept anything.

Stay cool,
R.

Hi Rythin,

Can you add me to your ICQ? # 202-402-373

 

[devil]

Very interesting game, will follow this for sure. Good Luck with it and make some great AAR

 

[Tonioz]

BTW, my compliments FAL, you are so far doing a great job as GM:
- 12 players for 13 listed "major" countries already in place, 3 joining soon and 2 subs... it should be a really stable crew, something I value VERY much
- you have the highest number of posts - almost a requirement for beeing a GM (surprisingly, BiB is the second, not me )
- the first post updated promptly

yes, FAL is doing very well. A lot of attention to ideas and players. I hope that he`ll make more formalized rules as well for different areas.

btw, FAL, which way you gonna prevent maps stealing by fast assault of capital (as far as i understand maps sharing will be forbidden as always)

 

[unmerged(18425)]

BTW, my compliments FAL, you are so far doing a great job as GM:
- 12 players for 13 listed "major" countries already in place, 3 joining soon and 2 subs... it should be a really stable crew, something I value VERY much
- you have the highest number of posts - almost a requirement for beeing a GM (surprisingly, BiB is the second, not me )
- the first post updated promptly

Thanks for the compliments Barnius, it gives me a nice warm and fuzzy feeling inside

You should by the way be more suprised BiB is only second

 

[unmerged(7276)]

btw, FAL, which way you gonna prevent maps stealing by fast assault of capital (as far as i understand maps sharing will be forbidden as always)

The fact people ask such questions is a worry in itself to me. We shouldnt have to police this game. Surely we can rely on the maturity of its players to play in the spirit without finding a solution to 'prevent' such things? If we start having arguments during the game about 'exploits' and 'bad RP' then it will have failed anyway imo

BTW if people are against me playing scotland (im used to it) then i can live with bavaria. Would be nice to have another HRE nation though like saxony or whatever. We dont really want to see brand annexing whole north germany in a game in this type.

Hi.
I'd like to play with you. Need another player? I'd like a small, tiny nation in a real shithole that shall encourage RP and diplomatics, if it's not a problem. But I will of course accept anything.

A HRE nation would suite this i think. Saxony was actually historicaly the strongest german minor before the TYW. They do have an awkward starting location though so perhaps the palanait. They can expand north better perhaps?

 

[Tonioz]

The fact people ask such questions is a worry in itself to me. We shouldnt have to police this game. Surely we can rely on the maturity of its players to play in the spirit without finding a solution to 'prevent' such things? If we start having arguments during the game about 'exploits' and 'bad RP' then it will have failed anyway imo

There is very bad manner not to talk about things and then fight, bitch and argue at forum about result, when "such things" are happened.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

I hope that he`ll make more formalized rules as well for different areas.

I want to try it first with confidence in the players. As I said, if there is really need for it I can interverne as a GM.

btw, FAL, which way you gonna prevent maps stealing by fast assault of capital (as far as i understand maps sharing will be forbidden as always)

Map sharing isn't forbidden, but I would like to point out that it doesn't fit in the spirit of this game to share your maps early or to bribe the AI for it.
If you want to explore the far East with England, do it as they did in history: plant ports and systematically build your way to it.

An example: It is possible that spain releases the Knights because of role playing reasons. In a normal game this won't happen because other countries will then get the Spanish maps. In this game I expect others to not immediately jump on the Knights after it.

In this game I don't expect quick assaults of a capital to gain maps. I expect you to build up to it. Hint that you want access to the riches of the new world first, then threaten a country for map knowledge. This can be done in game, but also on the forum.
If they still refuse to give in, declare war on them and ship troops to their capital.

Do not sit ready for the Portuguese coast with troops, before dowing, to land them on Tago for a quick assault after the dow.

I am going to rely on the behaviour of the players here before trying to get a headache by making rules.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

There is very bad manner not to talk about things and then fight, bitch and argue at forum about result, when "such things" are happened.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with asking and making things more clear before the game starts!

I do hope my post explains what I expect from the players.

 

[Tonioz]

FAL, nice explanation. I believe you really better describe such situation and what you expect. One such action, when conditions are unclear, and that ruins the system. I just saw similar things in one recent game, and better to prevent in advance instead of getting forum spam later.

 

[ForzaA]

Talk all you like, Forzie - this is something you won't manage to convince me to change.

Yes, it depends on luck - and those who are lucky enough to get deflations get quite an edge above those who doesn't. But can't the same be said about conversions and free manufactories, two other examples of pretty damn sweet events? Want to remove those?

yes please?

...nah

Furthermore, I find it odd that you guys make it sound like 5% deflations is insanely stupid and outright gamebreaking. I'd like to remind you that it was a part of EU2 for 8 official patches and several beta patches, and was only changed fairly recently as an experiment.

they are in themselves not stupid, but your argument that they encourage war is

 

[unmerged(18425)]

The 5% deflation events are quite suited for this mod, because investing in the economic techs is less useful now.
Also, I expect people to mint here a bit more than in a normal game and that's why I think the 5% deflation events aren't that unbalanced.

That said, I do agree that a stroke of luck can change a lot, especially with the RNG having the habit of sending the same 'random' event a couple of times to a country.

 

[unmerged(7276)]

I think i actually prefer what drake said. That is a govenor on capitol like in bocajs scenario. This is good for early game where a lot of people are too prudent. -5 or -2 deflation though im not that bothered.

BTW i hope people dont think of roleplay in the UN mentality too much also. That is you HAVE to defend the underdog if it is attacked. This is certainly not historical roleplay. Insisting on reasonable peaceterms is one thing. Jumping in without saying a word sucks. Perhaps this should be added to guidelines. Again id like to emphesise the need to be more vocal about our policys. Certainly there should be less secret ones than public ones.

Also a note on colonisation. It would be very inhistorical to have the whole world colonised by 1600. Bad for holland especially. I see 3 choices on this.

1 restirct colonising via edit - ie limiting the land/naval sliders to restict people to perhaps 1-2 colonists per year

2ask people to go easy on colonising and rely on the spirity of the game

3just not care about it and let people do as they wish

 

[unmerged(10146)]

BTW i hope people dont think of roleplay in the UN mentality too much also. That is you HAVE to defend the underdog if it is attacked. This is certainly not historical roleplay. Insisting on reasonable peaceterms is one thing. Jumping in without saying a word sucks. Perhaps this should be added to guidelines. Again id like to emphesise the need to be more vocal about our policys. Certainly there should be less secret ones than public ones.

I agree 100% with this.

Also a note on colonisation. It would be very inhistorical to have the whole world colonised by 1600. Bad for holland especially. I see 3 choices on this...

If we behave like you suggested above, than it is possible colonisation or lack of area for colonise should not be a problem. What I have in mind is sort of historical flow of events. Sure, Portugal and Spain will have a lot of colonies, but Holland and England will go after them. Possible other new colonial powers.

If Holland DOWs Portugal for colonies, in the light of what is said above, I don't think Spain would be so concerned with this to deffend Portugal. basically I suggest a guideline saying wars for colonies to be something third parties would not care about too much. So, even if for example England and Holland act togeather against Portugal for colonial gains, noone would really intervene if the goals were limited to say one COT or 5 islands. Perhaps noone would probably intervene if that repeats in 10 years. But probably someone would intervene if the same model is intended for the third time...

The result would be aggressive late colonising powers getting cheap colonies others paid for.
In such a scenario

 

[unmerged(18425)]

BTW i hope people dont think of roleplay in the UN mentality too much also. That is you HAVE to defend the underdog if it is attacked. This is certainly not historical roleplay. Insisting on reasonable peaceterms is one thing. Jumping in without saying a word sucks. Perhaps this should be added to guidelines. Again id like to emphesise the need to be more vocal about our policys. Certainly there should be less secret ones than public ones.

It is pretty much already in the guidelines, since they state that it is preferred to give warnings before dows and dows should make sense historically (just defending an underdog doesn't).

Also a note on colonisation. It would be very inhistorical to have the whole world colonised by 1600. Bad for holland especially. I see 3 choices on this.

1 restirct colonising via edit - ie limiting the land/naval sliders to restict people to perhaps 1-2 colonists per year

2ask people to go easy on colonising and rely on the spirity of the game

3just not care about it and let people do as they wish

It is of course option 2 we go with.
As much as I expect wanna be colonisers to not steal or map trade maps in a gamey way, I expect the traditional colonisers to make sure there are spots left for the Dutch. Ie, just covering the coasts of territories with Tp's/level 1 colonies, because you don't want others to have a change there isn't exactly what we are looking for here.

EDIT: and if we all accept a colonial war spirit, it should make it more easy for the new comers as well.

 

[unmerged(7276)]

No but historicaly the world wasnt colonised by 1630 which often happens in the game. Im not just saying this for the benefit of holland btw. The more people colonise the less the fight and roleplay. Problem is if one person starts claiming colonies like mad then the rest have to do the same to keep up. Thats the way i feel when i play such a nation anyway. Is there no kind of edit to the scenario we can make to reduce th speed of colonisation

 

[unmerged(10146)]

No but historicaly the world wasnt colonised by 1630 which often happens in the game. Im not just saying this for the benefit of holland btw. The more people colonise the less the fight and roleplay. Problem is if one person starts claiming colonies like mad then the rest have to do the same to keep up. Thats the way i feel when i play such a nation anyway. Is there no kind of edit to the scenario we can make to reduce th speed of colonisation

I feel the same to a certain border, but when too much "damage" to my plans for the world map colour is done I stop caring and decide to take what I want later, nicelly developped and paid by too greedy opponent .

There is a way: reduce number of colonists in religion.csv.

 

[ForzaA]

No but historicaly the world wasnt colonised by 1630 which often happens in the game. Im not just saying this for the benefit of holland btw. The more people colonise the less the fight and roleplay. Problem is if one person starts claiming colonies like mad then the rest have to do the same to keep up. Thats the way i feel when i play such a nation anyway. Is there no kind of edit to the scenario we can make to reduce th speed of colonisation

Reducing the number of explorers and conquistadors, increasing the price/difficulty of colonisation (can be done)
.. there are ways, yes

 

[PJL]

Personally, I think colonisation rates should be left as it is -if it was slower, there would be less competition, not more. As long as people don't play gamey and build TPs/L1 colonies to stop colonisation in the area full stop, I don't see a problem with over-colonsation early on - it will mean latecomers will be forced to fight them anyway.

A good trading nation will still have a sizeable income even without many colonies, and due to the size multiplier will tech up faster, and be able to spend money on other things, like a good navy. Then they will be able to threaten existing colonisers.

Of course you could argue that the nation with all the COTs could ban that nation to reduce their income, but in a RP game such as this they would have to be consistant with their reasons.

 

[unmerged(7276)]

I would strongly advise reducing the number of colonists in the religion.csv file then. This will be 2 major advantages

more historical colonisation
more money for spain and england to spend on war and other things.

I cant really think of any disadvantage to be honest. Someone will probably not like it though so fair enough. Im not that bothered but i just think it is a good idea.

Im far more interested on what minors will be included, if any. Im not really interested in any of the normal major nations to be honest. Ill just watch the game and maybe sub if you decide to go without them. Will be fun to watch progress anyway.