Are there any Interactive AAR's with the exception of President's out there anymore? If not does anyone have any ideas for a new one?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Personally that may be difficult but I would help MOD and support anyone else who would.
There are two going on I believe in HoI 3, but they've been going for a while already.
I see Leeroy isn't willing to start a new Interactive AAR, but, assuming the mods were happy with this, I'd be willing to (sorry I didn't see this earlier...). I was thinking a V2 one, basically modelled on the Presidents and SotA, maybe with one a western European power, given it's really got to be some form of democracy and both Americas have been done recently... Any thoughts?
The problem with that is that it would limit what the forum members can do because the Papacy doesn't have eg short fixed terms by Popes elected for life or any semblance of non-absolutism, so unless you are the Pope, it could be rather dull...
My thinking was that a) it is far more complicated to do EU3 thanks to the variety of rules which would have to be simulated (though maybe this isn't an issue, given I never fully understood SotA rules on coups...), such as ruler stats, (and then modded in) and b) because of the focus on foreign affairs vs V2, EU3 would provide a less suitable platform to run one of these off, though it may make it more suitable because of the freedom then provided (assuming simulating domestic affairs is allowed and not sanctioned as off-topic). Furthermore, the only really successful Interactive AARs I know of (SotA and the Presidents) have both been run off V2, though I'm sure EU3 has its fair share of successes, just I'm not aware of them.
That does not mean that I am against at EU3 based one, just that I have doubts about whether they are equitable starting points. (Maybe too, I prefer V2 because I'm a Brit and thus am sort of secretly angling to do a British one... though I dunno; maybe eg venice would be more fun... I'm working myself round to it!)
That does not mean that I am against at EU3 based one, just that I have doubts about whether they are equitable starting points. (Maybe too, I prefer V2 because I'm a Brit and thus am sort of secretly angling to do a British one... though I dunno; maybe eg venice would be more fun... I'm working myself round to it!)
Last edited:
OK; I tried looking at how Doge's worked in Venice and it seemed overly complicated (there were about 10 super-majorities required and several random ballots...), so if that were the route to be followed the voting system would need looking at (maybe the was some sort of a-historical uprising that changed how government was organised?). My suggestion would be to have one house made of three parts, all of which together would make the standard voting chamber. Characters would either be a representative of the people (well, relatively wealthy men over the age of 25, or similar), the guilds or the church (maybe in the ratio 5:5:1) and people's votes would be weighted depending on the size of their group and the number of other people in that group (as in Frymonmon's Crisis games), meaning that any parties would require support from at least two groups of people to function. Doges would be voted for every 4 years (I believe in reality they ruled for life) and require a majority of the house; their skills would be determined by the percentage of each group of characters they had supporting them (based loosely on the system in the Atlantis one) - the people would give military skill, the guilds administrative and the church diplomatic, say. Who has powers to do what is a harder question though; maybe best left up to the characters once it gets going? The current party model of the Presidents, with two main parties and a third independent one is very good and worthy of copying, and, though parties are not necessarily that historical, they will evolve anyway and it makes more sense to incorporate some kind of formality into them.
An interactive AAR is an AAR, so played by one person, but the actions of the country played evolve based on the decisions of those participating; the difference to multiplayer being, basically, one country is played rather than many (so that it is more akin to a cross between a RPG and an AAR than a multiplayer game and an AAR)
I was thinking of a Chinese warlord AAR awhile back - starting from the rise of warlord power, through the fall of the Qing, and so on. There'd only be formal voting power at times when a republic was "functioning" - most decisions would be based on muscle (which would be represented by an imbalanced voting scheme so generals could try to gain more and more power by careful politics, than use the influence to make it unwise for their desires to be crossed - however, the losing side would be at risk of being seen as a threat and weakened - in the event of close matches or extreme decisions, actual warfare might break out similar to Shadow of the Andes' civil wars). Lots of double governments (choose which government you back and vote in their decisions) and cliques switching sides.
An alternate history one would be interesting. There's some suitable nations in Divergences if someone is willing to dig through and figure out all the nuances of backstory there - or just have a game which starts midway through: Perhaps the Danubian Federation in a democratic former-Austrian-Empire, or the Californian or Texan Republics, or a communist Brittany, or an HMS Byzantine Empire deciding how to take over the rest of the world.
Interesting goals can also help. We've had the peaceful leadership of the U.S. in Presidents, and the less peaceful leadership and expansion in Shadow - but what about a world conquest (well, not a total world conquest, since individual AAR writers find such a feat near impossible, and a group of bickering players will probably find it worse - but what about a hilariously revanchist and expansionist nation with reasons to try to expand as much as it can? Maybe it's spreading it's ideology [or a stateless communist ideal], or maybe it's Cecil Rhodes on steroids.)? Or perhaps a U.S. Confederacy or some other nation in a lost cause war against the inevitable. Or perhaps the Manhattan Commune after the disintegration of the U.S. (using NNM or PDM), trying to rebuild the union in its model. Perhaps play a Britain game, but have the players be Canadian officials who have some sway in matters but not full control (and are trying to push towards a greater British empire, but more pressingly for a better Canadian situation and eventual independence and confederation).
An alternate history one would be interesting. There's some suitable nations in Divergences if someone is willing to dig through and figure out all the nuances of backstory there - or just have a game which starts midway through: Perhaps the Danubian Federation in a democratic former-Austrian-Empire, or the Californian or Texan Republics, or a communist Brittany, or an HMS Byzantine Empire deciding how to take over the rest of the world.
Interesting goals can also help. We've had the peaceful leadership of the U.S. in Presidents, and the less peaceful leadership and expansion in Shadow - but what about a world conquest (well, not a total world conquest, since individual AAR writers find such a feat near impossible, and a group of bickering players will probably find it worse - but what about a hilariously revanchist and expansionist nation with reasons to try to expand as much as it can? Maybe it's spreading it's ideology [or a stateless communist ideal], or maybe it's Cecil Rhodes on steroids.)? Or perhaps a U.S. Confederacy or some other nation in a lost cause war against the inevitable. Or perhaps the Manhattan Commune after the disintegration of the U.S. (using NNM or PDM), trying to rebuild the union in its model. Perhaps play a Britain game, but have the players be Canadian officials who have some sway in matters but not full control (and are trying to push towards a greater British empire, but more pressingly for a better Canadian situation and eventual independence and confederation).
I think a democratic Danubian Federation could be very interesting, with the different minorities vying for more power and the central government trying to maintain order, taking it through the world wars, the clashing of ideologies etc.
I agree that a Danubian Federation sounds like a great idea; the mass revolts of 1848 would provide a sensible point at which to ditch the monarchy - suppose that, rather than abdicating, the Emperor Ferdinand had tried to continue suppressing the revolts. As the conflict had continued, the general opinion would have slowly turned against the monarch, as happened in America, until eventually a new state was set up which reflected the American system, with states comprising the different nationalities which federally elect a president. There would also presumably be some mechanism to allow these states to rebel that would have to be added in, either in an American Civil War fashion where maybe race relations become an issue because there are limits on who can hold which offices, or more likely, in individual cases (eg Austria having a reactionary revolution to reinstate the monarchy).
I assume that this would be done by some sort of modding (presumably adding a decision and using it at the appropriate moment...)
I assume that this would be done by some sort of modding (presumably adding a decision and using it at the appropriate moment...)
Perhaps have it so you have a national government that operates similarly to The Presidents, but each person picks a state they are from, such as Slovenia, and there is also an election as to who is governor of each state. The governor can choose to try and rebel, in which case it'd have to defeat Danubia in a war, a decision for this can be implemented pretty easily.
Issues might arise in that case where just one person is from a particular state....
Perhaps everyone can declare which state (revolt-able TAG) they associate with, and each group has their vote weighted according to the political power of that state within the federation (as well as maybe some restrictions on which nationalities can get which positions - a power sharing agreement to try to keep the empire together and stable early on). Early on, Austria and Hungary would be the beneficiaries of the early power-sharing agreements between the states (since they were the leading ones before the revolution, and want to hold on to some of that power), but this could change.
If a region felt dissatisfied with their power, they could vote to break away or start a civil war (in either case, if they are victorious they get to have a say in how much influence their region has). They do this by voting (if a majority from a region decide to side with secession, it will happen).
If a region revolts, it works similar to SotA's coup system. The ministers and generals affect how the military sides - so if you appointed a bunch of oppressed minorities as generals... you're in for trouble. Those then side with the rebellion.
It would be a bit more tricky to organize (probably would need to have oob editing, or a more complicated and abstracted decision), but there's no need for constant governor elections everywhere.
If a region felt dissatisfied with their power, they could vote to break away or start a civil war (in either case, if they are victorious they get to have a say in how much influence their region has). They do this by voting (if a majority from a region decide to side with secession, it will happen).
If a region revolts, it works similar to SotA's coup system. The ministers and generals affect how the military sides - so if you appointed a bunch of oppressed minorities as generals... you're in for trouble. Those then side with the rebellion.
It would be a bit more tricky to organize (probably would need to have oob editing, or a more complicated and abstracted decision), but there's no need for constant governor elections everywhere.
That seems fairly reasonable; I assume that there would be routes for both democratic and revolutionary change, but some sort of Austro-Hungarian lock on power will push the other states towards the latter. I'm also assuming that this would not need to be (initially) justified by eg population or franchise, and without express instructions, nothing would change - so even as the voting population favoured the other states, the political power would still remain with Austria-Hungary. (I know this is kind-of just a summary of what you said, but that's mostly because I want to have understood correctly.)
You suggest using revoltable tags as states, so I guess they form pretty nice nation states (I would of thought given the complexity, around six would be optimum, at least to start with). In the case of conflicts between tags, can we think of a logical system as to which takes precedence, or are we just going to manipulate the map to get a nice number of states. Which areas qualify as states? Do the Italian provinces count as 1 state, 2 states or no states? Would they have elected for independence in preference to joining a Danubian federation? Would the Czechs and the Slovaks be together or apart? Would Hungary retain its large tracts of Romania? What would happen to those provinces now in Ukraine? Would Serbia or other states not part of the Empire have risen up in the hope of joining? (sort of like Texas [?]) [EDIT: see next post]
In addition to this, given that the game starts in 1836 and our diversion from history would come in 1848, are we going to try and recreate the world in 1848 or just play until we're in that situation? In terms of Austria this is easy, because, as far as I can tell, there are no changes in this period, but what of the rest of the world?
Sorry for just posing lots of questions, but giving no answers... Maybe I'll add my thoughts on possible solutions after a little thought.
PS, Gloa, you will be RoleplayAAR of the month for January 2013. Congratulations.
You suggest using revoltable tags as states, so I guess they form pretty nice nation states (I would of thought given the complexity, around six would be optimum, at least to start with). In the case of conflicts between tags, can we think of a logical system as to which takes precedence, or are we just going to manipulate the map to get a nice number of states. Which areas qualify as states? Do the Italian provinces count as 1 state, 2 states or no states? Would they have elected for independence in preference to joining a Danubian federation? Would the Czechs and the Slovaks be together or apart? Would Hungary retain its large tracts of Romania? What would happen to those provinces now in Ukraine? Would Serbia or other states not part of the Empire have risen up in the hope of joining? (sort of like Texas [?]) [EDIT: see next post]
In addition to this, given that the game starts in 1836 and our diversion from history would come in 1848, are we going to try and recreate the world in 1848 or just play until we're in that situation? In terms of Austria this is easy, because, as far as I can tell, there are no changes in this period, but what of the rest of the world?
Sorry for just posing lots of questions, but giving no answers... Maybe I'll add my thoughts on possible solutions after a little thought.
PS, Gloa, you will be RoleplayAAR of the month for January 2013. Congratulations.
Last edited:
- Status