kcfgogbfalgfl
Auto-translated
Okay.
Let's clarify a few things right away. I didn't want to go into too much detail, because often things look worse on paper than they might turn out to be, and plus, surprises and interesting gameplay can be a pleasant thing.
In general,
There is a base: NS, and all initial characteristics (indicators in the analysis) are taken from there. Some have a good environment, some have healthy people, and some have miserable idiots, you get the idea.
NS is updated every twelve hours, and as a result, these two games cannot be played simultaneously.
What I want to do:
1. The indicators on NS are used to set the starting conditions. No more information is taken from the game website; the indicators are fixed.
2. All the fullness of state power is ENTIRELY in the hands of the player, and he can make legislative and other changes at his discretion, instead of waiting for the right issue for days/weeks/months. For these purposes, a pre-designed system and a list of these very laws will be used, with the conditions for their implementation and other details. And now, if the Security Council adopts some resolution and the country agrees to implement it, it will be implemented immediately. The mechanics for resolving social issues will be very simple, and if it concerns economic, industrial, and so on, then other game laws will be applied, which I haven't written yet, so I can't give details.
3. Players choose their technologies, culture bonuses (here, Arets, for example, can choose his own calendar; I initially only had various historical places as attractions for tourists, popular music, movies, and so on), and religions in a similar way. Perhaps, by the time it starts, there will be something else along these lines.
4. The original indicators on NS may have pleasant/unpleasant consequences, and some may not be taken into account at all. For example, corruption is a very unpleasant thing, and someone may be offended that, due to some other negative things (rudeness, for example), other players will not have such penalties.
5. In general, this will be a political and, depending on the development of events, a strategic simulator.
I haven't outlined all the ideas and details in full, but the essence should be clear from these points.
That is, you can, of course, continue to play as before and answer two issues a day, one of which is repeated, but I don't know, I'm starting to lose interest. I always enjoy role-playing and describing my country, but in general, nothing happens in the game itself: alliances are formed that play no role; resolutions are adopted that mean nothing; and so on.
What I'm getting at: tell me right away, should I do this, or will I simply waste millennia of time and in return receive only some one-line dissatisfied comment?
I will say right away that I will not make a game of the type "play and forget."
Let's clarify a few things right away. I didn't want to go into too much detail, because often things look worse on paper than they might turn out to be, and plus, surprises and interesting gameplay can be a pleasant thing.
In general,
There is a base: NS, and all initial characteristics (indicators in the analysis) are taken from there. Some have a good environment, some have healthy people, and some have miserable idiots, you get the idea.
NS is updated every twelve hours, and as a result, these two games cannot be played simultaneously.
What I want to do:
1. The indicators on NS are used to set the starting conditions. No more information is taken from the game website; the indicators are fixed.
2. All the fullness of state power is ENTIRELY in the hands of the player, and he can make legislative and other changes at his discretion, instead of waiting for the right issue for days/weeks/months. For these purposes, a pre-designed system and a list of these very laws will be used, with the conditions for their implementation and other details. And now, if the Security Council adopts some resolution and the country agrees to implement it, it will be implemented immediately. The mechanics for resolving social issues will be very simple, and if it concerns economic, industrial, and so on, then other game laws will be applied, which I haven't written yet, so I can't give details.
3. Players choose their technologies, culture bonuses (here, Arets, for example, can choose his own calendar; I initially only had various historical places as attractions for tourists, popular music, movies, and so on), and religions in a similar way. Perhaps, by the time it starts, there will be something else along these lines.
4. The original indicators on NS may have pleasant/unpleasant consequences, and some may not be taken into account at all. For example, corruption is a very unpleasant thing, and someone may be offended that, due to some other negative things (rudeness, for example), other players will not have such penalties.
5. In general, this will be a political and, depending on the development of events, a strategic simulator.
I haven't outlined all the ideas and details in full, but the essence should be clear from these points.
That is, you can, of course, continue to play as before and answer two issues a day, one of which is repeated, but I don't know, I'm starting to lose interest. I always enjoy role-playing and describing my country, but in general, nothing happens in the game itself: alliances are formed that play no role; resolutions are adopted that mean nothing; and so on.
What I'm getting at: tell me right away, should I do this, or will I simply waste millennia of time and in return receive only some one-line dissatisfied comment?
I will say right away that I will not make a game of the type "play and forget."