A new Great Game ?

[Peter Schutze]

Is anyone interested in joining a new "Great Game" ?

Basically what I have in mind is starting with the world as it was in 2005 (population and GDP) and moving forward from there

Focus would be as much on co-operatively building a history as the traditional explore-build-conquer. The overall technology etc will follow 2300AD and remain as hard science as possible.

Besides a core of enabling rules most of the game would be fairly freeform to deal with the out-of-left field items that are sure to come up.

 

[Droptrooper.]

Very tempting.

 

[oletheros]

A couple of questions:

- How long would it be between turns? One a week? Any less than that and I wouldn't have the time.

- Play by email? Play by wiki?

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Interested.

It has been decades since I messed with Traveller 2300, but I always loved the idea of the Great Game, so sure I am interested.


Still some logistic briefings would be nice.

 

[Sturn]

Interested enough to be waiting for details to see if I'm able.

 

[deniable]

It looks interesting. It'd be a nice way to generate some alternate settings, or you could run it as a scenario generator.

 

[kmsoice]

So In. You can contact me at kelvinsoice@hotmail.com.

 

[Peter Schutze]

>How long between turns ?

Hopefully weekly at first moving to fortnightly once things get busy ..... Im thinking that initially everyone submits activities by Friday and I resolve over the weekend

>Play by email? Play by wiki?
Im thinking something like a yahoo group for the players to share

Dont know how to create a wiki but sounds like a great idea, especially if it can have public and private sections

Initially at least it will have to be via email

 

[Peter Schutze]

How do people feel about the following:-

Running multiple unrelated countries ?
They would have to be run as totally independent operations.

Allowing consensus input into the running of minor countries ?

Allowing other players to interfere with the running of the EU by requesting country X "does this" ?

Treating some of the worlds larger conglomerates as minor countries in their own right ?
For example the Mitubishi comglomerate while a big chunk of Japan's economy, would be only partly under the Japan players control. Other players would be able to offer consensus input into the conglomerates

 

[Whipsnade]

How do people feel about the following:-

Running multiple unrelated countries ?

Peter,

No. No matter how well intentioned the player, there will still be instances where they make decisions for one country for the benefit of the other.

Allowing consensus input into the running of minor countries ?

This is the way to run all non-player countries actually. Let me suggest that you look into a bidding system too. Players would use "political" points earned through the actions and/or accomplishments of their own countries to influence the consensus. When a question to vote about whether Nation X undertakes Action Y or Action Z, expending points would allow a player to vote more than once.

Allowing other players to interfere with the running of the EU by requesting country X "does this" ?

The EU is a tough call because it is neither fish nor fowl. There is no combined military, no combined foreign policy, none of the hallmarks of a true nation-state other than an external tariff barrier and the internal movement of goods and peoples. It's more of a diplomatic shell game, allowing member states to wear an EU "hat" or national "hat" as they see fit for whatever current advantage either may confer.

I'd suggest that the EU in the game be split up between the individual major states like Britain, France, Germany, or others and the remainder which would then be run as a bloc of sorts. Again, by spending political points, players running one of the EU majors could set EU policy or choose to opt of said policy decisions.

It would be a game within a game.

Treating some of the worlds larger conglomerates as minor countries in their own right ?

Most definitely, although play balancing such entities will tough as most will morph into nation states sooner or later; i.e. Mitsubishi "taking over" Japan.

As you note, conglomerates would be subject to consensus offered by those nations in which they operate, again perhaps using a political point systems.

One cautionary note, the more entities you add to the game, the more players you're going to need. My rough count of "important" nations, blocs, and conglomerates already stand at over two dozen.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Peter Schutze]

>One cautionary note, the more entities you add to the game, the more players you're going to need. My rough count of "important" nations, blocs, and conglomerates already stand at over two dozen.

USA, China, India, Russia, Japan & France are the only curent space capable (satellite launching etc) powers .... who else is in your 2 dozen ?

Secondary powers I was considering if we have more players include Germany, Brazil, UK and South Korea for their economic or resource power.

>Players would use "political" points earned through the actions

Political Points are part of the current game rules and it is my intention from to award points for achievements as well as occassionally for contributions to "the game" itself.

>players running one of the EU majors could set EU policy

I would expect that to be a major use of France, Germany (and maybe UK's) political points .... temporarily gaining control of the other Eu countries votes and possibly the EU budget

Look forward to more input from potential players. I should have the time over the holidays to get the rules outline ready. Major difficulty I see at the moment is integrating a design system into the game structure I already have.

Looks like the potential space powers and infrastructure is bigger than I thought although much of it is inactive. It does give scope for other countries such as Australia, Italy, Canada and Israel to become player nations if there is enough interest:
http://www.spacetoday.org/Rockets/Spaceports/LaunchSites.html

 

[Whipsnade]

USA, China, India, Russia, Japan & France are the only curent space capable (satellite launching etc) powers .... who else is in your 2 dozen ?

Peter,

You've already listed eight of those found on my list: Germany, Brazil, UK, South Korea, Australia, Italy, Canada, and Israel. (I'd throw in South Africa too just for "geographical balance".)

Look at who else you'll need to add though:

• Huge international "conglomerates" like "Wal-Mart", "Mitsubishi", "ING", "GE", or "Gazprom".
• Resource cartels like "OPEC" or "NT&T".
• Regional "groups" like "OAS" or "OAU" to cut the number of "non-player nations" down do a size that can be managed.

The numbers really do grow quickly.


Regards,
Bil

 

[kmsoice]

Peter,
No. No matter how well intentioned the player, there will still be instances where they make decisions for one country for the benefit of the other.

Sure, but I think that unless we have something like +40 players then having each player control multiple countries is the only way to simulate the wild mishmash of conflicting views that you find in international politics. If we are going to do this then we all have to recognize that we are not playing for money here, you only 'win' by having fun so we need to keep such unrealistic actions to a minimum. ...and even if there is some cheating, so what? I am sure in history stranger things have happened than unusually congruent actions between nations which otherwise should have nothing in common.

I kind of like the idea of one country per continent per player.

 

[Whipsnade]

Sure, but I think that unless we have something like +40 players...

kmsoice,

Forty players? Good grief! I certainly hope Peter isn't expecting to wrangle forty players and I'm rather certain the original GDW Great Game didn't have forty players.

If we are going to do this then we all have to recognize that we are not playing for money here...

Yes, you're not playing for money. You're not paying money to play either. Peter is volunteering to do this and saddling him with more than 15 players or so wouldn't be anything but cruel.

I kind of like the idea of one country per continent per player.

Sadly, the "good" or "interesting" nations aren't distributed in that manner. The global "South" is going to be under-represented in this game, just it is under-represented in reality.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Peter Schutze]

Damn, I had just logged off last night when you 2 started posting !

40 players .... if we could find them that would be cool but whipsnade is right, 15 is probably the most I will be able to handle once things start happening

>Regional "groups"

One trend Im going to be relying on at least for the tiny countries is confederation ..... I can't see San Marino or East Timor playing any other real role in the game unless people decide to start wars of conquest to grab them

>Huge international "conglomerates" like "Wal-Mart", "Mitsubishi", "ING", "GE",

Walmart and ING are out because they might be fairly rich but dont have the industry distribution to make a difference. They might make an appearance in events eg sponsoring a colony ship however

Mitsubishi, Hyundai and GE are definitely in because they are integrated conglomerates with major industrial, financial and resource exploitation activities

>having each player control multiple countries

The more I think about it the more I believe the political rules will have to allow players to gain temporary control of minor nations

 

[kmsoice]

40 players .... if we could find them that would be cool but whipsnade is right, 15 is probably the most I will be able to handle once things start happening
.
.
.
>having each player control multiple countries

The more I think about it the more I believe the political rules will have to allow players to gain temporary control of minor nations

Huh? Wha? I did not think I was advocating having +40 players, I was trying to say that with the ~15 we would get we would need to have players control multiple countries in order to simulate having the +40 players that we would really need to make a good game. Anyways, if you are confident that your political rules will allow players to gain temporary control of minor nations then it sounds like problem solved, one player one country ok. Indeed you should think carefully about such rules and expanding them; just a guess but I think that the contest between players to control the minors is likely to be the central battleground of the game. As a bonus such battles would also pretty much answer your other two questions of "Allowing consensus input into the running of minor countries ?" and "Allowing other players to interfere with the running of the EU by requesting country X "does this" ?"


I have never played a game by wiki, but I can see the possibilites, especially in a game like this were there is bound to be a tremendous number of dry facts that need to be shared and stored.


So if the game start uses 2005 stats then we must be playing as if the Twlight War never happened. That is a rather major departure from cannon for 2300AD, any reason?

 

[Peter Schutze]

>So if the game start uses 2005 stats then we must be playing as if the Twlight War never happened. That is a rather major departure from cannon for 2300AD, any reason?

Using the 2005 stats means there are interesting new players on the world stage (particularly India and Brazil) and besides why duplicate exactly what has been done already ?

Dry facts .... like what we already know about exo-planets ? {grin} Thats what I was playing with last night. There are about a dozen systems withing 50LY of us that we have ID'd gas giants in

 

[Peter Schutze]

Whats the feeling ....
1) Naval Architechs Manual as printed
2) expanded Naval architechs manual (mostly early tech)
3) or some other ship design system?

 

[kmsoice]

Whats the feeling ....
.
2) expanded Naval architechs manual (mostly early tech)

I would go with option #2. The basic framework of NAM is just fine and everyone understands it but it pretty much forces the designer towards making nothing but simple yet heavily armed combat vessels (i.e. the Kennedy) because of it's skimpy list of equipment options. So adding in early tech options would be great. Have you seen the T20 rules for 2300AD ship design that Colin posted in this forum a few weeks ago? I have a copy if you need it. That is what NAM should have looked like.

 

[Peter Schutze]

>Have you seen the T20 rules for 2300AD ship design that Colin

yep. unfortunately Im not familiar with T20 ship rules so a lot of items fly right over my head. I will try to incorporate some of the items eg heavy lasers into my expanded NAM. Im going to identify the differences so people can ignore them at leasure

Wecan build pre-stutterwarp ships using NAM .... the initial in-system ships just need to use the MHD+thrusters rules