www.navalism.org

Current vote total on the last poll has the following

Earth as we know it           -5 (31.3%)
Earth with some changes         -8 (50%)
Totally new world         -3 (18.8%)
Total Voters: 16

50% want earth but some changes, details of which unknown but its not a clear majority now 81.3% 11 of 16 want to use earth in some form.

This thread will attempt to address the nature of what changes people are looking for.

1) Some Change to Geography is adding or subtracting some elements to the globe but by and large its the world as we know it.

2) Some Change to History is attempting to use largely the historic nations.

3) Radically Different Geography, covers a wide area from things like additional continents, tilted / flipped earth setups, lowered sea levels, etc.

4) Radically Different History, Current world but we scrap the historic time line to support things like player nations in different locations.  About what I get the impression that P3D favors.

5) Use Earth as a base but change it and history, I assume that if we make ANY changes to geography there will be some changes to history but its a question of degrees.  Our current navalism game has fairly impressive changes to geography, some additional islands or enlarged ones, Australia and the Pacific Ocean got biggest changes with East African Rift Sea impressive in its own right.  We have lots of unhistoric setups in terms of nations.

I voted for #5.  I would like to add more islands and alter the geography a bit.  Mostly in terms of raising some things that are currently on the ocean floor.  Like Doggerbank in North Sea, Rockland Plateau in North Atlantic, adding some thing to the Pacific perhaps but not player controlled, a Pacific version of Africa.  Etc.  I am in favor of having P3D's idea of picking 3 locations or so and sticking the players there but these locations aren't directly connected to the major areas that will become colonies.   

When the time comes for a new game we will need the following done or nearly done.

1) Altered Map ready to go that shows new geography, mountains, rivers, deserts, etc.
2) Above map also in outline to allow for political control to be easily noted
3) Settle on what we are doing with the rules set
4) Set startup conditions.

Quote from: miketr on February 08, 2010, 02:05:12 PM
1) Some Change to Geography is adding or subtracting some elements to the globe but by and large its the world as we know it.

2) Some Change to History is attempting to use largely the historic nations.

3) Radically Different Geography, covers a wide area from things like additional continents, tilted / flipped earth setups, lowered sea levels, etc.

4) Radically Different History, Current world but we scrap the historic time line to support things like player nations in different locations.  About what I get the impression that P3D favors.

5) Use Earth as a base but change it and history, I assume that if we make ANY changes to geography there will be some changes to history but its a question of degrees.  Our current navalism game has fairly impressive changes to geography, some additional islands or enlarged ones, Australia and the Pacific Ocean got biggest changes with East African Rift Sea impressive in its own right.  We have lots of unhistoric setups in terms of nations.

1&2

5). Why? Because some item's are things that are easily altered, and that make the game more interesting at little cost. Example: The Rift Valley. Although it was relatively easy to modify, and the geography is the same on the split area, it adds another area for conflicts and adds a secondary sealane, plus New Zion.

I voted for 2, but realisticly I want both 1 and 2.

That's 5.

I voted #5 as well. However I'd not wish to see MASSIVE changes in history or geography. Quite honestly, while I like the Rift Sea idea, I HATE DKB/Maoria being in the middle of the Pacific w/ no effect on weather/current/etc.

I cast my formal vote for 3, because I'm entirely too afraid that 5 will turn into much of a repeat of the setting we have here, with history whose differences aren't significant beyond a specialist's interest, and clumsy hacking about to add new landmasses.

That is, my personal preference could be called 'three causing four', because I think they can both be done by picking a single elegant, very early divergence and then following it carefully rather than splashing different colors of paint and calling it done.

I voted for 4, but I would rather be along the lines of picking an early divergence and following it from there carefully than just something randomly picked out of thin air.

I voted for 5.

I like opening the Rift Valley, could do with an 'Escape From LA' style 'Island of California', and wouldn't mind seeing new land areas in the Atlantic and Pacific (all those Atolls in Micronesia could map out a nice new continent).

Since my preferred area of operations will always be the North American continent, I have the following ideas for it.To really make things a bit interesting for North America specifically, we could do the following things:
1.) Lake Bonneville and/or other glacial lakes never dried up. At almost 1000' deep in places, they would make an interesting front for otherwise landlocked nations to have 'sea battles.'
http://geology.isu.edu/Digital_Geology_Idaho/Module14/Bonneville-Pleist-Lakes.gif (http://geology.isu.edu/Digital_Geology_Idaho/Module14/Bonneville-Pleist-Lakes.gif)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Lahontan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Lahontan)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Bonneville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Bonneville)
2.) The Great Lakes as we know the are 'modified' to allow for both for free travel (without need for locks) between at least most them and perhaps to encompass a 6th great lake, the prehistoric Lake Agassiz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_Lake_Agassiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_Lake_Agassiz) This would, again, give another front for naval battles for nations that might only have one coastline.
3.) At least five major nations- six, counting Mexico or an analogue- on the continent... two competing for space on the Eastern Seaboard, one on the West Coast, and one in the Extreme North and one amidst the 'Lake Country' in the middle of the continent.

Change completly the history & the Nations

Important geographic changement for examples:
- Mediterranee completly open, Gibraltar Strait=300km.
- Sinai doesn't exist ; Mediterranee open
- Complete separation between North America & South America


Historical great Empires
- Chinese Empire
- Inca Empire
- Roman Empire
- Indian Empire
- Pharaon Empire
...


Jef

I'm totally in favor of Carth. Yes, me and Carth agree! :)

I would like to play two nations, if possible. The inland nation and a New Zion.

With respect to additional great lakes, etc.  I am fine with such changes but we need to consider the following.

#1) Do we care why things like Lake Agassiz and the uber Salt Lake dried up?  IE they were fed from glacial melt and once the ice age ended so did they.

#2) Who makes the call for what changes occur in terms of geography?

I have a suggestion with respect to #2.  We make things a bit of game so to speak.  We establish an order for people and then we go through that order X # of times.  When its a persons turn they can make a change to a location on the globe.  We come up with some limit to how much of a change this can be in terms of area.  Change can even be to undo some one else change.

Michael

Mike, I believe that you have probably hit upon the best idea for re-making the world both 1.) fairly in regards to how it winds up and 2.) to suit our desired level of 'wierdness.' Everyone has a 'limit list' of how much you can change any one given thing- i.e. 'no island Europe, but disconnected Americas'- and we start picking. Anyone that makes a change that might be considered 'too wild' by some can be partially compensated for by a later decision, evening things out.

I even think this could work for countries as well. Let everyone pick a point for a random country (has to have existed at one time) and say whether or not they exist or not- if you're willing to integrate it into the agreed upon background and storyline it out, then you're good.

TEXAS...FIGHT! I'LL FIGHT OVER TEXAS!!! :)

This is our call to greatness Novgorod-Ostpreussen! ;D

I could hypotheticly agree to this, but I would want a nation of Very Long lived Humans with a lower reproduction rate (oh and pointy ears)

Quote from: Tanthalas on February 08, 2010, 07:09:28 PM
I could hypotheticly agree to this, but I would want a nation of Very Long lived Humans with a lower reproduction rate (oh and pointy ears)

I second the NO F@CKING ELVES, WEREWOLVES, VAMPIRES, ETC.. BS...HUMAN ONLY.

Vulcan's, anyone?

Nothing that isn't human, at all.

Agreed....so no Marines....:)

Quote from: TexanCowboy on February 08, 2010, 07:44:34 PM
Agreed....so no Marines....:)

Like I said, no Supermen.

Here that, Tan! He think's you shouldn't be in here! :D :D :D

jk,jk,jk,jk,jk

Quote from: Carthaginian on February 08, 2010, 07:42:19 PM
Nothing that isn't human, at all.

Thats going to make it a bit hard to get a steak unless people want me to write thugee type stories as the normal....  ;)

Quote from: Carthaginian on February 08, 2010, 07:47:29 PM

Quote from: TexanCowboy on February 08, 2010, 07:44:34 PM
Agreed....so no Marines....:)

Like I said, no Supermen.

Hey I sort of resemble that remark...

Quote from: TexanCowboy on February 08, 2010, 07:48:52 PM
Here that, Tan! He think's you shouldn't be in here! :D :D :D
jk,jk,jk,jk,jk

I have been assured I am exempted from the no Marines clause, that said who said anything about elves... Im just asking for geneticly mutated humans that live a realy realy long time (oh and realy like trees).

I'll second liking Mike's idea about what the process for modifying earth might be. I think it might work even better if we get that far that everyone type up their "rigid constraints" ahead of time, and give them to the mods to compile. That way we could just say "sorry, we can't do that due to a rigid constraint" and leave at that, anonymous, so no one would feel the need to argue about it or defend their position. There might be some cases where we'd have to decide to set one aside, but hopefully that would be rare.

I think I also like the idea of, having completed that geographical wrangling, that we might follow a similar turn based storyline setup too, to define in loose terms the world history up to the point we expect to start playing. At the very least, it would be an interesting exercise.

I also suspect that we have near consensus on option 5, with Valles' concerns noted -- hopefully we can figure out a way to satisfy those. At this point, I'm not sure how to proceed though. I think maybe I'd like a roll-call by PM, if everyone doesn't mind. I say by PM so that everyone can feel free to express how they really feel without peer pressure, etc. Please send me your answers to these questions:

1. Are you more interested in continuing to play Nverse3 as it is now, playing a rebooted Nverse4 that starts play approximately in 1885, or playing both at the same time?

If the answer to 1 is that you are interested in an Nverse4, one way or the other:

2. Would you want a power bigger than what you have now, smaller than what you have now, or about the same?
3. Do you already have a concept in mind about what sort of nation you might want to play, or are you in more of a "play it by ear" mode.

If and when we eventualy restart, I want a nation about equivilant in power to what I curently have (seriously after being a big kid who wants to go back to the little table), that said I promised I wouldnt ask for Tolkenesqe items. (and im not asking for elves persay I just want long lived people because as you all know I detest changes of leadership)

1) I am happy to continue to play Iberia in N3.
2) With the above said I think it might be a good idea to set an END DATE for N3 maybe 1930 or something.  So there is an orderly transition to the game instead of the game blowing up over some issue and having to do a new game and deal with bad blood.  Also we need time to sort out the rules / economics ideas.
3) I would like to do 1785 but I am alone in that desire so I will go along with 1885.  I just want the powers to be equal in terms of economic strength.  No small, medium and large to start.  Everyone is a medium power and see what you achieve in the brave new world.
4) Handing our wish list to the mods and having them work it out could work.  Guinness background idea could work.   

Night

Roll call answered.

I'd be happy to restart as the CSA... though without anything Mexican in the west- Texas, Oklahoma, NM and Arizona are enough west of The River, than you. If I had to pick something 'ahistoric' for the CSA to possess, it would be Cuba as it's agrarian society would fit into the CSA nicely- though I'd not back down from the opportunity to fight some other power of equal potential for it (though a lop-sided war wouldn't appeal to me at all). I would like a somewhat equal USA to fight with over the river systems, though.

If not, I've detailed my other national ideas in the PM.

Well I really like the idea of a world with no ice caps. Crazy battles in the Candian Archipelago and civilizations waaaaay down under, combine that with a totally clean slate (total war/massive natural disaster) and it could be an interesting scenario, thought I would be cool with just about anything.

I would like to play a Mexican Empire (but no Texas, no way), or else some sort of spread out country (yeah I'm crazy).

As for how to end N-verse III, I suggest a massive World War were we sink all our shiny new toys (hey that's why we built them, isn't it?).

Well, free time is yet in my future.
However, in answer to the questions.

1. I think I would prefer an 1885 world. More strange ship designs to explore. I think I can rather contentedly run Bavaria for quite some time, so long as the workload is low, and in the mid/late 20s I will likely even field larger vessels, but old style battlewagons are cool. 1785 is a little rough and handling the vessel evolution would be a challenge.

2. On power size, I suppose anywhere from  8 BP to about 20 BP is doable. Smaller and you can't build much, larger and tracking the fleet gets to be a real hassle.

3. Haven't a clue. Sentient Kodiaks? Warbear riding Barbarians? Bare Barbarellas? Or something more sober and realistic? Monarchies and Constitutional Monarchies are easiest for me to run.

I think AH Earth would be interesting enough, but the majority apparently wants much less constraints.

oh I have decided what im going to do since im not allowed to have "Elves".  Instead ill just dip into my vast imagination and creat a semifacist monarchy with restricted citizenship based entierly on personal responsability.  Personaly as for start date I would prefer say 1890 with a backlog of say 10 years on Naval construction to provide us with initial fleets.

Quote from: Tanthalas on February 09, 2010, 12:49:03 AM
Instead ill just dip into my vast imagination and creat a semifacist monarchy with restricted citizenship based entierly on personal responsability. 

Hmm, apart from the semi-fascist bit, I'm doing that already :)
Borys

Quote from: Borys on February 09, 2010, 12:52:51 AM

Quote from: Tanthalas on February 09, 2010, 12:49:03 AM
Instead ill just dip into my vast imagination and creat a semifacist monarchy with restricted citizenship based entierly on personal responsability. 

Hmm, apart from the semi-fascist bit, I'm doing that already :)
Borys

so am I, I only included it for the limited franchise bit.

1. Hmm, I suppose either way is fine with me. I would like to, like Miketr, to start at 1785 though.

2. Doesn't really matter to me, I am versatile :P

3. I would prefer either an island nation or some Baltic state/Russia. Of course, I could play it by the ear too.

Yeah, I know you said "By PM" but meh, everyone else did it here..so why shouldn't I

1) I'd be ok w/ continuing N3 if/when N4 happens, at least long enough to see if N4 is going to 'click'.

2) I'm content w/ a medium size power. Bigger could be interesting, and smaller has advantages too, but Medium is more my speed/style

3) Honestly I've always liked Germany (except from 1928-1945 and all the E/W crap that NATO/BLOC pulled after WWII). I'd like to try my hand at a continental Germany w/ or w/o the constant land grabbing. ;)

1785? Springsharp says that it can model vessels 1850-1950. How would you propose doing earlier?

The Board Game Wooden Ships and Iron Men Covers the late 18th and early 19th and has some tables for build your own scenarios which could be used as a base.  Empires and Arms has a nice land combat system for the time period also.

So use them as a base. 

The problem is shell guns and early steam engines 1820's to 1840's but I figure we could come up with something to hold us over till the 1850's.

Quote1. Are you more interested in continuing to play Nverse3 as it is now, playing a rebooted Nverse4 that starts play approximately in 1885, or playing both at the same time?

If the answer to 1 is that you are interested in an Nverse4, one way or the other:

2. Would you want a power bigger than what you have now, smaller than what you have now, or about the same?
3. Do you already have a concept in mind about what sort of nation you might want to play, or are you in more of a "play it by ear" mode.

1. I love the N3! I just never get to devote the time I would like to it. Family always throws in the wrench!
N4 would be most enjoyable in that I want to design a fleet from scratch! Not take over a fleet then alter it to suit(If you can).
I would like to think I could both but honestly unless things mellow, I doubt I could.

2. Bigger or about the same(economically), smaller size(square miles). IE, more developed infrastructure.

3. Nordic, Native American(5 Nations?Lakota-Iroquois) or Japanese type background would be preferred.

1. I'd like to continue N3 until, say, 1930ish, then switch over. I'd also be willing/interested in playing both at once, but don't think that the attention-split would be workable over the long term.

2. Definitely bigger; I like battleships, and Maoria's really at the very edge of where a power would be able to afford even a few of same, especially if I want to do things properly.

3. I have a couple-three ideas floating around, one of them kind of Confucio-Euro-Tibetan, another based off of a fusion of Japanese engineer-types who ended up sharing a society with a Summer Of Love Revival Tour, and a third that's a straight AH idea for a unified Japano-Korean state dating to time immemorial.

QuoteI second the NO F@CKING ELVES, WEREWOLVES, VAMPIRES, ETC.. BS...HUMAN ONLY.

Nah. We need the Vampires and only in whatever nation Rocky ends up with just to annoy him. ;D


1) I wouldn't mind working with both N3 and N4 at the same time.

2) A bit bigger would be nice. :)

3) I'd probably stick to what I have for N3 (a mixed society), though perhaps in a different location.

I'm here, and getting more time, so I'll take whatever I can get. :)

Swampy, STAY AWAY from the Phillipines! :D

Mixed societies are really fun, cause you can steal people from everywhere!

I like others have no problem continuing N3 to its logical conclusion in what 10 or 11 Years so figure 22 HY from now or even into the 40's.

I dont figure I have the time to do both at the same time :)

I have no problem playing a medium or lage sized power...

Charles