Iconic

I am in desperate need of a hegemony game, even if I am modding these It'll still relieve some tension. Please can we skip the arbitiary arguing phase, choose a game and go! Gangster Hegemony Basically, you play a gang leader. You hire mooks and gangsters to fight the other gangs and ultimately gain control of the city I give you. Over time you can collect money to bribe officals, buy automatic guns and generally just increase your power and influence. The game will take place in a city, area's will be coloured in when owned by a player, all buildings give an income but some 'units' require upkeep. The game will take place in either: The 1930's, the mafia days with racketeering and zoot suits. Present day new york with shooting and 'gangsta speak.' Present day Britain with hidden gangs working everywhere and hostile 'bobbys'. Grouped Hegemony A standard hegemony game, probably set in 2010 but if not darkest africa could be interesting. The twist is that people are put into groups, these groups would have to agree on things to win, of course things would work by majority. You can attempt a seperationist movement but that would weaken you. Everyone has there own multi-PM set up and it becomes a Edict Hegemony In present hegemony you have the power of a king, you can decide what is researched, attack whoever you want and control the population extremly easy. I think it would be a fun idea if you didn't play a all powerful monarch with access to mind control, you played an average monarch who has to deal with his or her people. Things aren't set in stone, if you wish to research something than you must place a grant on researching it or force people to research it, if you want to declare war you have to get your armys support, you have to pay for propaganda and everything is centered around pleasing your population who will in turn do things for you. If you are interested in any please post, if you are a new member who's just browsing post and we'll fill you in on everything your not sure about!

Russian revolution was Authoritarian to Less Authoritarian. Freedoms are nice, people are happy when they get them but when they are taken away they are shocked. Jen's Anthrax..... Everyone hated that.

So basically, my dictatorship can be defeated by an election... Look, if your playing my game its my rules and population will take what there used to. For example, if you slowly make your country more and more authoritarian than they will accept your choices more but if a liberal state starts placing camera's everywhere and excecuting political opponents then there will be an uproar. If you start talking about bombs you will have to say "I issue an incentive for bombs, £6,000,000,000" And depending on the sum it will get done faster but probably in a minimum of ten/twenty years.

You seem to be the only one who's ever really had any interest in NPC's. NPC's are risky, you don't want an NPC attaking you and causing you damage thats not fun but if a player does it its actually a little bit fun.

I control China in 83 BC, with a population over 150 million. I issue an edict to embark on a crash course of Industrialisation, based on the Soviet 'Great Leap Foward'. I predict that, in 80 years, I will have Nuclear weapons. This statement is based on the fact that both the Soviets and the 1st century BC Chinese use Wooden Plows and have the ability to make steel. I then Nuke Europe. Yet they don't have any theory of nuclear physics yet.....

Archi's thought pattern: "Hmmm..... I'll just do the opposite of what Iconic says!"

Strangely I thought this was adressed at me and I pretty much wrote the exact same.

I'm just trying to grasp which is most popular.

My logic is flawless. I'm an avaliable mod.

Right...So basically Hegemony with the words 'I issue the edict that' before every post Or one with endless arguements that 'I issue an edict that everyone who researches nuclear weapons gets 50,000 whatevers a year, so I have 5,000,000 people and so I will have nukes in 3 years' 'No. 5,000,000 random people researching Nuclear weapons does not create nuclear weapons.' 'STOP MODDING ARCHI, I KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN' No of course not, laws would have to fit a certain criteria. "I issue the edict to create bombs" would be replaced with "I issue an incentive for research into bombs". And it would be done on a logic basis Such as? Police raids? People accuse the mod of overreacting. Gang Leadership wars? No, because if a person looses they get booted out the game.... The game is also fundermentally flawed in that it is based on one word 'Gangsta'...Which doesn't mean anything except a diregard for the conventions of the English Language and the insertion of a swear in every other sentence. The police could be played by a player, Gang leadership wars wouldn't happen everyone has there own gang. Gangsta = Gangster, it makes me think of new york crime. Yeah...I can just see it now, me and Jen on the same team...the country declares civil war. Forced groupings is a bad idea. And if it was grouping by choice then everyone wants to join Nero first and maybe me second. Your right, I've had this idea for a long time it would be a fest of chaos and fighting, it would get heated and people would come home and just want to play and WIN, its a game that only the strongest will survive. Forced groupings is how it works in real life but I don't mind unforced groupings. Strangely I would stay as far as I can away from you two. And, fundermentally, the only person who has shown any sort of long term ability in modding a Hegemony Game, except me, is Nero. So starting games that neither me, nor Nero, will go for is spitting into the wind.

Should I bother making a map for gangster hegemony?

I have a couple actually 1) A game entirely based on Edicts, you are the leader but your only power is to change the law and declare war. You cannot research or do anything you can do in the past hegemonys only make laws. Say, you want to make some money, you'd have to make some laws to improve efficiancy, come up with the right political system. Say you wanted to research something specific, you'd have to sway the status quo and incourage it. 2) Gangsta Hegemony, nuff' said. You have armys around the hood, you play a gang leader but are at constant risk. 3) Grouped hegemony, everyone is assigned in random teams to rule a country a group PM is arranged between them. There are only five countrys and therefore five teams, a great game of deception and lieing and arguing.

I really don't get it. If your running a hegemony, and it has an IRC battle system its a game I won't be playing. Its a stupid little gimmick.

Then don't call it hegemony. Ross, Yes but doesn't it make you go: "OH MY GOD, AWESOME AWESOME AWESOME" and make you want to click it.

Sounds awful.

Making another new game right now wouldn't be as good of an idea, as we've pretty much got every day except Wednesday covered with IRC Dungeoneering and Space... I'm playing one rather inactive one, I reccomend a new hegemony.

Nation creation = hegemony, what we are famous for. D&D = Dungeoneering.

Who needs fallout when you have the text based games of: Falador tavern

I AGREE ARCHI CAPSLOCK SHOULD BE RENAMED AWESOME LOCK

I would arm myself with a weapon and run out of the front door, I would run out of the drive and enter a person's house. My signiture makes you want to click it... Doesn't it! DOESN'T IT

We have roleplays and roll to dodge. Just come, try out a couple games and if you hate it leave.

New discussion Look outside, see this: He smiles and raises his chainsaw which is most definately real and laughs. WAT DO?

I would just like you to give it a go for a day or go.

REPLY ANSWER