«12. . .3,6563,6573,6583,6593,6603,6613,662. . .3,6823,683»
Whoooo! Best public transport in the AU!
Nearly Finland and Medinan
Random thought. In some RP posts requiring coordination between two people, often involving me, one of two things happen. Either posts are exceedingly short, so we don't abridge on anything the other person might want to say or do, or they're exceedingly long, describing everything in detail but kinda shoving the other player out of the way. The first prevents the plot from advancing for anything for anything much larger than a chat, and the second forces the other player to react in the background. Or a one-sided post might require edits and revisions. I've made both mistakes before, probably multiple times. For large posts, the best way to avoid this would probably be sharing one big outline via telegram, and posting it in chunks, so the other player can respond to something that might be unexpected.
Something that it'd be nice to hear ideas on: Battles are pretty much legal debates. How do we fix that? None of us are real-time combat simulators, and it's hard to visualise back-and-forth casualties and damage, especially when nobody wants to lose. Almost every curb-stomp battle that I've seen here was when the losing nation's player didn't care too much about the result. All of us are seasoned players, and might not be too bad at this, but what about new RPers? We can't simplify everything to "HP" or "combat points" or "whoever has the most troops", but we can't expect everyone to read a tonne of military literature.
This probably has been suggested before, but anyways... There could possibly be a set of guidelines simulating the battle, agreed on by all members. When two nations engaged in battle, a third neutral party could determine the result beforehand, using the aforementioned guidelines. Then they could send those results to the nations involved in the battle, so they could RP based off those results. It goes hand in hand with your suggestion to share an outline via telegram.
The third neutral party thing seems good, only hoping that Tessen won't have to do it every time. This seems alright, as long as the end of the battle isn't set in stone before any posts happen. Perhaps every post or two from both players (not necessarily including posts focused on an involved character's perspective) would represent an individual stage of the battle.
Tessen, Cascadia and columbia, and Sandinista nicaragua
Ooooooooooooooooooooh! Spooky ghost comment! XD
I suppose since I'm not here anymore, my opinion doesn't matter, but my two cents on the matter is: To regulate battle, at least, to regulate it realistically, requires a computer. Plain and simple. Otherwise it becomes a numbers ploy, either so complicated no one understands it, or oversimplified to the point where the guy with the superior numbers wins every time, without regard to terrain or strategy (such as with the BRP system Tessen implemented).
Part of the problem, too, I might point out, is that wars to date (for as long as I was here) have been pre-built affairs, with only a few exceptions. Both of our France vs. the world wars were story related and were intended to result in the downfall of France. The few "spontaneous" wars were between a teeny-tiny nation and a gigantic empire (Hornigold's War, the Last Gasp of the Ottomans) or a strong coalition of high-tech nations (Imperial Curacao's attempt at world domination, way back in the day), with the end results being fairly obvious to anyone watching.
The only exception was the Soviet-British war, which was sadly left unfinished because of that first time I left in a fit of pique. Other than that, strong battle and war rules haven't been strictly necessary.
Nearly Finland and Sandinista nicaragua
Yay, hi! 'spose you're right. Making a computer programme is out of the question here, so I 'spose we'll just have to rely on a third party reviewing battle posts for acceptable levels of realism.
Hey 
Nearly Finland, it looks as though your nation has descended into anarchy, lol
Nearly Finland and Sandinista nicaragua
yep... not sure exactly what the NS stat prerequisites are for that, but I venture to say they might not be 100% accurate to the definition of an anarchy.
Ooops. It happens. Although, I imagine it would be hard to explain in-story. ;)
Welp, everyone is dead. Thanks?
You're welcome :D
Haha sorry. I was bit busy the past few days
Lalalalalallalalalalalalalallalallalalalalalalala
Tessen, Nearly Finland, and Sandinista nicaragua
What's new AU??
Not much. Just waiting for the region to open up
Tessen and Medinan
Hopefully it happens eventually.
Tessen, Medinan, and Sandinista nicaragua
Hopefully indeed
Tessen and Sandinista nicaragua
It will. Alas, I have been pulled into another larger project that has required more of my attention than anticipated. Even though we are VERY close to opening the story here, I had to set the AU story on the back burner -- temporarily -- in order to get this bigger project rolling. I'll be jumping back into the AU stuff as soon as I can.... maybe next week? This coming weekend at the earliest?
I wish I could offer a more definite timeline.
Nearly Finland, Cascadia and columbia, and Sandinista nicaragua
This new policy thing was a really good idea I must say.
Nearly Finland and Sandinista nicaragua
Did I miss something?
Update to NS. There's a tab that shows what policies you've enacted.
OOC: My life is sufficiently sorted. Weekly story posts will resume.
Medinan and Columbianas
«12. . .3,6563,6573,6583,6593,6603,6613,662. . .3,6823,683»
Advertisement
