Nova Historiae
GENERAL DISCUSSION => General => Topic started by: United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarves on January 05, 2016, 04:13:55 am
-
I know previously Nova had us do wars with mutual consent, which I understand, because no one should be forced to RP if they don't want to. However this isn't on the realistic side. So, is there some sort of compromise between the two we can strike?
-
Maybe we should vote?
-
Perhaps you need no consent to declare war, but to lose land you must agree with your enemy what land to take/give?
-
Perhaps you need no consent to declare war, but to lose land you must agree with your enemy what land to take/give?
Countries who are defeated don't have a say in what's done with them IRL. If we are trying to simulate the real world with alternate histories shouldn't we be able to do exactly what is done in real life.
-
How about we have it so you don't need consent to declare war, but you need a valid reason?
-
Perhaps you need no consent to declare war, but to lose land you must agree with your enemy what land to take/give?
Countries who are defeated don't have a say in what's done with them IRL. If we are trying to simulate the real world with alternate histories shouldn't we be able to do exactly what is done in real life.
Unless they come to an agreement.
-
There is no reason to keep the war consent rule, on the forum i run i do not have it, and we have had zero issues with out it.
-
But it wouldn't work with countries that have zip/no military at all if they are invaded by a superpower.
-
But it wouldn't work with countries that have zip/no military at all if they are invaded by a superpower.
I don't think anyone on here would be that much of a douche.
-
Maybe if Burdina was on... But otherwise true
-
Maybe if Burdina was on... But otherwise true
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/b7afadfc92c28d0f66fc42c0f7016e26/tumblr_ndlp7szgZN1qz9nvbo1_400.gif)
-
Speaking about Wars i have the updated version of the spreadsheet that nova found for the oldie. Feel free to use it PBA.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1k8keQFnYiebTOhPUbn1duW3AWOYAiyi-jkEP4uJSdEw/edit?usp=sharing
-
Maybe if Burdina was on... But otherwise true
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/b7afadfc92c28d0f66fc42c0f7016e26/tumblr_ndlp7szgZN1qz9nvbo1_400.gif)
XD
-
Another topic is population.
-
Maybe if Burdina was on... But otherwise true
First off I have a spreadsheet second off no need to violate.
-
Maybe if Burdina was on... But otherwise true
First off I have a spreadsheet second off no need to violate.
Spreadsheet =/= Military
PBA still has to decide how militaries work, give him time.
-
Maybe war needs no consent, but should assassinations of public figures, bombings, revolutions, etc, need it? It would balance out both sides.
-
Well I can tell you I would be totally pissed off if someone else started an RP featuring a revolution in my country. If you do that you are messing with a lot of work and research I've done for my nation.
Here is what I was going to propose.
- No consent for war
- A nation may not be totally removed from the map via war however. Perhaps put a limit on it of a nation can only be reduced to half the size of its original claim?
I feel we need to consider limiting total expansion into unclaimed areas somehow. We once had an issue where most of the map had been gobbled up by existing members and there was virtually no room for new ones.
NSTracker is back up and is a lot easier to use than those spreadsheets were.
-
But what about small nations like me? Maybe if I lose a war to someone, I turn into a state?
-
Well I can tell you I would be totally pissed off if someone else started an RP featuring a revolution in my country. If you do that you are messing with a lot of work and research I've done for my nation.
Here is what I was going to propose.
- No consent for war
- A nation may not be totally removed from the map via war however. Perhaps put a limit on it of a nation can only be reduced to half the size of its original claim?
I feel we need to consider limiting total expansion into unclaimed areas somehow. We once had an issue where most of the map had been gobbled up by existing members and there was virtually no room for new ones.
NSTracker is back up and is a lot easier to use than those spreadsheets were.
So would we need consent for revolutions, bombings, and assassinations?
-
But what about small nations like me? Maybe if I lose a war to someone, I turn into a state?
Maybe if a country is totally conquered they become a resistant or something like that but only in their former country area? they can not every be totally destroyed.
-
Eventually we are going to need to establish some form of "regional government" if only just to keep me from eventually telling everyone to just bugger off and leave me alone because of having to handle everything. ;D
The right to participate in that government will probably be based on citizenship in the region which will probably be based on a nation's/member's map claim.
If a nation has no map claim then they won't be able to vote, run for office, etc because they are no longer a citizen.
-
seems fair.
-
I want everyone who is in the region to be able to participate. Try and put yourself in the position of someone who isn't really interested in military RP but finds, say, the diplomatic RP more fun. They get attacked by a neighbor and because we are saying they must participate they lose their whole claim. So now not only is their nation essentially lost because of an RP they didn't really want to participate in but now they are prohibited from participating in regional activities that have nothing to do with RP. So there needs to be a limit to how much of their claim a nation can lose.
-
I want everyone who is in the region to be able to participate. Try and put yourself in the position of someone who isn't really interested in military RP but finds, say, the diplomatic RP more fun. They get attacked by a neighbor and because we are saying they must participate they lose their whole claim. So now not only is their nation essentially lost because of an RP they didn't really want to participate in but now they are prohibited from participating in regional activities that have nothing to do with RP. So there needs to be a limit to how much of their claim a nation can lose.
I think it's unfair for someone to permanently lose their entire claim, but I also think it's entirely unrealistic for the victor in a conflict to be prohibited from taking land from the loser. After all, a lot of wars are fought over just that, land. We could remedy this by limiting the amount of land the victor is allowed to take from the loser. Say, for example, a quarter of the loser's land is the maximum that the victor is allowed to take, or something else along those lines.
-
Wars are not as common as you would think, people dont just declare war for no reason, and when they do others usually defend them.
-
Wars are not as common as you would think, people dont just declare war for no reason, and when they do others usually defend them.
I'm not trying to say anyone I know from the past in this region is a war mongerer. And perhaps my views have been colored by experiences in other regions. But what I'm trying to do is arrive at something that is fair and equitable to both sides of the argument and allows the loser to keep participating in the region, even if they are perhaps reduced to a Luxembourg, Andorra, or San Marino. We can't control who will respond to a recruiting telegram and someday, eventually, that bad apple is bound to show up.
-
Cant these things be solved with RP? that is the best way in my opinion, rules should be the final failsafe. If a warmonger joins logically people would unite against him.
P.S. who is your host? im having serious issues with mine rn.
-
It's a forum hosting service, like proboards, except they run smf. ;D Also happens to be owned by the same guy who made most of the mods we used on the old forum, so they come installed. ;D ;D Downside, they don't let you install mods or themes but they do let you tinker with CSS.
-
Forgot this, link at bottom of forum.
-
Soooo....
Have we figured out how wars will work?
-
How does this sound
- No consent needed, however wars must be declared
- To declare a war the declaring nation should make a forum post and PM the nation he/she is declaring war on (the PM is just in case the nation war is being declared on doesn't see the post)
- To actually have troops you need to have filled out and posted a link to the regional military spreadsheet. Said spreadsheet can be downloaded here: http://novahistoriae.smfnew2.com/index.php?action=ezportal;sa=page;p=1
- Wars will be turn based. In other words the first person to post should only post a single action declaring units they are moving/using and their actions, the next person to respond will declare any defensive actions taken then units they are moving/using and their action, and so on until all nations involved have posted.
- Nations who are being attacked will have 48 hours to respond to a post/attack. If they do not respond within that time frame it will be assumed that they were unable to defend against that particular attack and the territory/city in question was lost.
-
How does this sound
- No consent needed, however wars must be declared
- To declare a war the declaring nation should make a forum post and PM the nation he/she is declaring war on (the PM is just in case the nation war is being declared on doesn't see the post)
- To actually have troops you need to have filled out and posted a link to the regional military spreadsheet. Said spreadsheet can be downloaded here: http://novahistoriae.smfnew2.com/index.php?action=ezportal;sa=page;p=1
- Wars will be turn based. In other words the first person to post should only post a single action declaring units they are moving/using and their actions, the next person to respond will declare any defensive actions taken then units they are moving/using and their action, and so on until all nations involved have posted.
- Nations who are being attacked will have 24 hours to respond to a post/attack. If they do not respond within that time frame it will be assumed that they were unable to defend against that particular attack and the territory/city in question was lost.
could we have that be 42 hours, it takes me time to do stuff, and I have a lot to do
-
Changed to 48 hours (two days).
-
Changed to 48 hours (two days).
Are military numbers based on nstracker still?
-
How does this sound
- No consent needed, however wars must be declared
- To declare a war the declaring nation should make a forum post and PM the nation he/she is declaring war on (the PM is just in case the nation war is being declared on doesn't see the post)
- To actually have troops you need to have filled out and posted a link to the regional military spreadsheet. Said spreadsheet can be downloaded here: http://novahistoriae.smfnew2.com/index.php?action=ezportal;sa=page;p=1
- Wars will be turn based. In other words the first person to post should only post a single action declaring units they are moving/using and their actions, the next person to respond will declare any defensive actions taken then units they are moving/using and their action, and so on until all nations involved have posted.
- Nations who are being attacked will have 48 hours to respond to a post/attack. If they do not respond within that time frame it will be assumed that they were unable to defend against that particular attack and the territory/city in question was lost.
What about revolutions and stuff?
-
How does this sound
No consent needed, however wars must be declared
To declare a war the declaring nation should make a forum post and PM the nation he/she is declaring war on (the PM is just in case the nation war is being declared on doesn't see the post)
To actually have troops you need to have filled out and posted a link to the regional military spreadsheet. Said spreadsheet can be downloaded here: http://novahistoriae.smfnew2.com/index.php?action=ezportal;sa=page;p=1
Wars will be turn based. In other words the first person to post should only post a single action declaring units they are moving/using and their actions, the next person to respond will declare any defensive actions taken then units they are moving/using and their action, and so on until all nations involved have posted.
Nations who are being attacked will have 48 hours to respond to a post/attack. If they do not respond within that time frame it will be assumed that they were unable to defend against that particular attack and the territory/city in question was lost.
Is this official?
-
I'M trying to arrive at some sort of consensus for this, what do you think?
Have you guys been allowing one nation to just say there is a revolution in another nation? IE I could just simply say a revolution has started in the FSA?
-
I'M trying to arrive at some sort of consensus for this, what do you think?
Have you guys been allowing one nation to just say there is a revolution in another nation? IE I could just simply say a revolution has started in the FSA?
*Slovak*
Not quite. We have staff initiated revolutions in other nations on occasion. But that is only to curb mass expansionism and to keep a semblance of realism. For example, one revolution that occurred was because someone started rebuilding the british empire. Recapturing all of the british colonies through military force.
The staff then created an event sort of thing in which several of the captured territories openly rebelled and fought back against the person who was empire building. Which is an entirely realistic thing that may happen in such an event.
But otherwise, no, not just anyone can start a revolution in someone else's country just because.
Also, in my humble opinion, you have described a good system and should make it official.
-
I agree with FA.
There should be a legit reason behind it.
-
Staff should be the only ones allowed to make revolutions, assassinations, bombings, etc in other nations, right?
-
Staff should be the only ones allowed to make revolutions, assassinations, bombings, etc in other nations, right?
Internal events, such as these, should be purely up to the individual nation involved IMO. If two nations want to get together and RP something like this then I would think that would be OK, Or if a nation wants to have a revolution and invites others to participate. For instance if I were to decide Brazil was going to finally attempt to seek full independence and then invited others in on the RP. However the nation whose territory is involved should have the last say in how the RP goes
I'M trying to arrive at some sort of consensus for this, what do you think?
Have you guys been allowing one nation to just say there is a revolution in another nation? IE I could just simply say a revolution has started in the FSA?
*Slovak*
Not quite. We have staff initiated revolutions in other nations on occasion. But that is only to curb mass expansionism and to keep a semblance of realism. For example, one revolution that occurred was because someone started rebuilding the british empire. Recapturing all of the british colonies through military force.
The staff then created an event sort of thing in which several of the captured territories openly rebelled and fought back against the person who was empire building. Which is an entirely realistic thing that may happen in such an event.
But otherwise, no, not just anyone can start a revolution in someone else's country just because.
Also, in my humble opinion, you have described a good system and should make it official.
This would be a good way to work out the map poll thing. In other words if a person does an RP to get more territory, and the resulting poll for approval fails, then we could have a RP event to explain why. Get my drift?
- No consent needed, however wars must be declared
- To declare a war the declaring nation should make a forum post and PM the nation he/she is declaring war on (the PM is just in case the nation war is being declared on doesn't see the post)
- To actually have troops you need to have filled out and posted a link to the regional military spreadsheet. Said spreadsheet can be downloaded here: http://novahistoriae.smfnew2.com/index.php?action=ezportal;sa=page;p=1
- Wars will be turn based. In other words the first person to post should only post a single action declaring units they are moving/using and their actions, the next person to respond will declare any defensive actions taken then units they are moving/using and their action, and so on until all nations involved have posted.
- A nation may not attack a "whole" nation at one time. For instance an attacking nation can't say they are landing 20,000 troops in Brazil. Instead the attack must be declared in this fashion,"I land 20,000 troops on the shores of Bahia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahia) and advance on its capital of Salvador." However, if a nation is capable multiple locations may be attacked simultaneously.
- Nations who are being attacked will have 48 hours to respond to a post/attack. If they do not respond within that time frame it will be assumed that they were unable to defend against that particular attack and the territory/city in question was lost.
Altered a little bit.
-
How should we fill out our population on the spreadsheet? NS pop (I highly recommend NOT using this one), actual pop of our territory, something else?
-
Yeah, NS population not realistic at all. I'm at 1,902,000,000 there. I believe I'm currently using the population of my territories, can everyone hang with that?
-
Eh, The main issue with using the real-life population is that it puts smaller nations like the Lesser German Union at a hilarious disadvantage against someone like Esterfort, who controls the most populous area of the planet.
-
What would happen if Luxembourg attempted to attack China? Either way we go there will be some sort of issues. I've gone round and round on this exact topic several times in a couple of regions. Either way isn't go to be totally fair. If we use NS population older nations wind up with a decided advantage. If we use real life populations small nations and those in bad climates (places where people don't want to really live) wind up with a disadvantage. The closest to fair scheme I've ever seen was one where after a nation reached a certain population they started handicapping them, saying they could only use a certain % of their population.
-
I think I am not doing something right because I don't know what to do when I go to files.
-
I have a 4shared folder embedded there, so you'll have to give that time to load. Then just click on the file and it takes you to 4shared to download it.
Warning: If you have an adblock enabled they punish you by making you wait forever for the download
-
So, basically, no matter what, population cannot be 100% perfect and fair for everyone. We from the old NH understand this too well. :P
With that being said, I'm okay with pretty much any system you want to implement, as long as you do choose something to implement. It's slightly important. :P
-
Ok do I have make account to download it?
-
Damn, I should have read this thread before choosing my territory :(. Less than a million in total Irl population.
As a suggestion, could territories have buffs and debuffs? For example, if an army for Asia attacks a territory in north Russia, they should be handicapped for being in a climate inhospitable to them, same with cold countries attacking hot ones, like Africa. And if that's the case, if an un-native army (let's say Asian) takes control of a icy territory (north Russia) they should experience a debuff when defending against nations native to icy territories. Just an idea, you may not like it but you could see it as a bit of realism.
-
here is what I did, thought it was a good compromise. Use your NS population until it hits 200 mil. After that you can either use that population (200 mil) or that of your territories whichever is better.