Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
anyone would be upset and offended if their country was bombed and occupied, especially for fabricated reasons.
As for the numbers, I wouldn't mind spending another week testing the issue, if that's possible. As for the game, I'm not sure. I'm not against it, but I won't be able to dedicate as much time to it as some other players. And I would still like some kind of restrictions, so that three months of work isn't destroyed. Moreover, it was initially intended as the creation of a world for a future expansion. Personally, I would like to have the opportunity to visit my own country, maybe others too, and see the countries from the perspective of a character, but without blowing up entire cities.
Restrictions – you can’t completely destroy a country. Everything else – why not? I was already thinking about how to assassinate Amelia and establish democracy in Pinkerton, and then the surviving socialists would emerge from the underground and drive out the invaders.
Well, I remember a real story from Russia, and there were even more interesting things happening, but we're still here, knock on wood. Although, we could make things a bit more challenging.
especially since it was initially intended as the creation of a world for a future expansion. Personally, I would prefer to have the opportunity to visit my own country, maybe others too, and see the countries from the perspective of a character, but without destroying entire cities.
What prevents you from setting the expansion in the war-torn Arconia? You could even make the attempt of the characters to escape from there the basis of the plot.
anyone would be upset and offended if their country was bombed and occupied, especially for fabricated reasons.
I won't be upset. A country isn't a person; it's just an abstraction. The real question is, if things escalate to that point, I'll try my best, by any means necessary, to prevent such a development, and it's not a given that it will be in-character. But if, in the end, it does get bombed, then I won't care anymore...
I was already imagining how they would kill Amelia and establish democracy in Pinkerton, and then the surviving socialists would emerge from the underground and drive out the invaders.
You're looking at things too idealistically. More likely, the surviving drug addicts will crawl out from the underground and make your life a living hell.
The problem is that if there is no interest, it will be a complete failure, which would be a shame.
It’s good that you reminded me of this, Heroist, because this is another important clarification: I won’t do this for two and a half people, and not even because of the lack of players, but because the idea will lose all meaning. Heroist
b)
c) There is also a problem with my country. Well, I’ve been hinted at this a couple of times before, and what about such a project? The most logical option in this situation would be to exclude this country from the game altogether and leave it at the level of a bot that does not participate in game actions, but I really don’t like this option. First, it will negate most of what was in Actaea at the international level (alliances, priorities, etc. will change). And second, I will be a LITTLE)) upset. In the event of military actions, players will not know the location of the enemy forces without reconnaissance data, but I, as the GM, know about them. This particular point can be resolved by transferring my armies under the honest word of one of my allies (initially I planned Heroist, but now it’s Kosha or Ment), but in terms of politics, economics, etc., I will not do this, because it will return to the first point.
personally, I would like to have the opportunity to visit my country, maybe others too, to see the countries through the eyes of a character, but without blowing up entire cities
If we recall the actions of players in expeditions, it is safer for countries to fight each other than to allow player characters onto their territory.
anyone will be upset and offended if their country is bombed and captured
Tell that to the rulers of Brazilistan.
In short, the agenda is: Reject this idea altogether; we continue to play as before. Full version, NS is no longer taken into account, the GM is accused of rigging the results, of poor distribution of properties and indicators, players argue with each other about their political decisions even more than if they were discussing real politics. Light version. A small add-on, the ability to supplement your country as desired, a new space for diplomatic negotiations. We play as before, NS is the basis, and technologies and other things do not add bonuses to indicators (exceptions: in the case of future games such as olympiads, mini-expeditions, etc.).
The full version is used, NS is no longer taken into account, the GM is accused of manipulating the results and poorly distributing the properties of the indicators, and players argue with each other about their political decisions even more than if they were discussing real politics.
In short, think it over seriously. Do you need this (NS will no longer be taken into account), will you play, will you be ready to accept the game mechanics (or rather, parameters) that I prepare, will you be ready not to "get upset" when something goes wrong, will you be ready not to get upset about lost battles if it comes to that (I will conduct the battle calculation in a similar way to Expeditions).
I'll be honest. I don't find this idea appealing. 1) I don't want to belittle Revan's efforts, his creativity, and his ability to develop characters, but I don't see any guarantees that the game will be balanced. Because all the numbers (except the starting ones) are written "from the top of my head." 2) The expansion is also "from the top of my head," but I want to play any expansion, even if it's a thousand times unbalanced, because it's cooperative. If we get our butts kicked because the opponent was too strong, then we'll all get our butts kicked, and that will even be fun.
In general, I apologize, but I am "not ready to accept the game mechanics (or rather, the parameters) that Revan prepares." I will wait for the expansion.
The most logical option in this situation would be to exclude this country from the game altogether and leave it at the level of a bot that does not participate in game actions, but I really don't like this option.
You can play as Greywater in this project if you want. Jinhai
Full version, the GM is accused of poor distribution of properties and parameters
Yeah, yeah. And not even intentionally, because I believe that you sincerely want to distribute them well.
В тихой однообразной жизни всегда так бывает: каждый отдельный день бесконечно долог, но месяцы и годы мчатся с непостижимой быстротой.
I wanted to offer you some flowers, but a crown would suit a princess like you much better
Смысл жизни в том, что жизнь на тебе не заканчивается
And the biased attitude will always remain.
They didn't want to make an agreement with me because I was listed as a dictator, but when Medj became their leader, no one broke the agreements with him.
Even if you allow canceling stupid laws to get closer to potential allies, it's unlikely that any changes will follow.
Arandor
Драккошка
