oh. so i get monster hunter, and eff demon souls then.

Yes. Monster Hunter wins at everything.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1732-Monster-Hunter-Tri

 

Warning, the following clip includes swearing and the truth.

Story so far.

 

Your a dealer of an item, you must create your item but their is ups and downs to everything. If you are buying and selling food their is a lot of buyers but it is dependent on weather and stuff, if you are selling gold rings you are not going to get so many buyers but the individual buyers will buy more, if you are selling drugs then you will have to be stealthy incase the bobbys stop you.

Anyway, once you decided on your product I give information about buyers but it takes time to get their (about an hour or so in realtime).

The fun thing is that other buyers and sellers will be out to get you!

You as an individual can buy propertys (the map is quite small at the moment but I am planning on incorporating a huge city and a couple of small villages) and these propertys people will head to and buy stuff.

 

With sufficient money you can burn down things, attack each other, pillage resources of places and sell them at higher prices and all of that.

 

Genre: Victorian Period however it will resemble the Medieval ages more.

That's a huge gap in years.

 

Funnily enough I've been watching anime set in the victorian era.

Sooo, do we choose from what you supplied or create our own product as the rest of your idea implies xD

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1732-Monster-Hunter-Tri

 

Warning, the following clip includes swearing and the truth.

>Implying Ben Croshaw is not biased against anything Nintendo, is actually at all serious in that review or played the game for more than 15 minutes.

 

That said, the review is damn hilarious.

That's a huge gap in years.

Victorian Era but with lots of Medieval tropes.

 

 

Sooo, do we choose from what you supplied or create our own product as the rest of your idea implies xD

Create and i'll have to individually come up with the pro's and con's of that idea.

 

ANYWAY, GOOD NIGHT.

What might be fun...and would fit the crowd perfectly...is a tactical game, rather than a strategic or individualistic game.

 

Idea:

Someone designs a battlefield and a weather scehedual.

People pick countries, and are given the choice of forces to deploy.

Once it is decided the mod tells me the two/more sides and I create joint discussions between those people.

 

Game runs for a week or so, each 12 hours representing 20 minutes of the battle.

 

If people leave then their forces are assigned to the rest of their team.

 

Anyone interested?

So kind of like Total war, but concentrating on the war, not the diplomacy?

I'm in agreeance Rocco. The farthest modern hegemony went was launching your city destroying nukes at the right moment.

Well, laser troopers and mutants....Since nukes and silly research would not be an option...but yeah, I was thinking medievl, since that is what people are using currently.

I don't mind the time setting.

 

I'm game, but why Dusty and Retech as captains? Why captains in the first place?

Hmmm....I wonder if I could ask another mod to set up the join discussions so I could take part [/Pipe dream, ignoring the obvouis task of having to set up the game]

 

 

Anyway, I think unbalanced battles would be more fun than balanced battles...

Top strategists

 

Archi

Dusty

Ross

 

Retech is fourth imo.

 

Ross is cunning, but he has a tendency to just spurt out his plans like a comic book villain. Also his plans always take a long time to complete XD.

 

I fear Dusty a little, I can never tell if he is serious, also that and everytime I bring up about attacking him in a game, everyone is like DONT FREAKIN DO IT, and it's not that it'd ruin the game, people seem to generally fear him too.

 

I fear Archi too, he is insane, and probably the smartest here, which isn't a good mix.

 

Retech is quite intelligent, but I feel as though he is too kind hearted. Yes I know he launched anthrax bombs everywhere and killed 98% of the population, but he is more kind than anyone else here.

 

 

Also now I am rather excited about this game, and I am shaking my knee in anticiptaion.

*Strokes Goatee*

My interest has actually been perked by a hybrid game...heh.

I'd like for it to start out kind of balanced, this is only my opinion though.

 

Like each players gets a terrain advantage, but a blatant disadvantage. Like being in a desert. You then have to adapt to your given terrain in combat or you're pretty much dead, which clings to the theory of the evolution rather well.

Ooooh, wargaming! This sounds like lots of fun, since it would be like the YOH battle reports, except that I don't have to make everything up myself, which sometimes makes it wierd.

 

Why not the late 1800s? It's the best time because there still is gunpowder, but it isn't as strong as in later eras, allowing hussars and other calvery to play an important role as well. Then there are Napoleanic style infantry columns and cannon bombardment. It would work much better in a tactical game than a strategic one, because then you could actually plan your attacks around troop morale, weather, and terrain beforehand instead of just reading about how your huge force was mowed down by gattling guns. :thumbup:

 

However, if you knew that the enemy force had gattling guns, you could prepare an infantry column and march all your soldiers in at once, while flanking from the side with your lancers. Getting mowed down isn't that bad when you're controlling your own forces.

I like battles which are step to step, as in you don't just give commands to your troops and then halfway through they just do w/e the hell they want. Battles where you can control them fully sounds good.

I would do that in YOH, but combat takes quite a long time to calculate, and people aren't always playing the entire day. :P

 

 

 

Napoleanic era! (Prussia? :thumbup: )

How about you do it with battles that are only between players and that are actual serious battles.

 

You wait till you get both results from the players then calculate, the battle could take ages I know but atleast no silly mishaps, but then it makes training generals pointless.

Could we relive diffferent historical battles?

 

We could do them in the Napoleonic Era up to Vietnam.

We'd just need a map and story.

 

It would definately give variety.

Well...I think we should start with a battle from 1077 AD, then have one from 3000 AD, one in 1800 AD and one in 200 BC, and then a space battle in 45000 AD.

 

That should take us to to about the 21st of August, then we can decide which ones we want to do again.

 

First one is a buffet, so to speak, there will be 2 naval powers, and then however many land powers to bring us up to full.

The story will be set in Normandy....After the defeat of William the Conquerer at the Battle of Hastings, King Harold of Anglend has laid claim to William's portion of Normandy.

The King of France has been rightly horrified by this and has amassed an army to deal with these invaders.

 

 

If people want to take part please submit a country and a summery of your forces(NO NUMBERS).

blargh. lots and lots of text. and i see you didnt include me in that list.. good choice. anyways, why not?

Actually, only Angland and France are involved, so please pick your province/county...you are a Duke or Baron or whatever.

Dusty and Retech can choose to be King if they want.