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.

 

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

 

2) Gangsta Hegemony, nuff' said.

 

You have armys around the hood, you play a gang leader but are at constant risk.

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.

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.

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.

:huh: I think some of my cat's hair has been embedded into my skin to become part of my own hair... :blink:

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

 

Who's logic? According to Retechian Logic you can sell blankets to people with fur suits and they will buy them. According to Matherian Logic you can tax people more money than they earn. According to Archi Logic you can turn minor xenophobia into a willingness to nerve gas everyone else.

 

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.

Yup, and you, as a British person, will have a different notion of what that is to the Americans...

 

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.

If you do, I will declare civil dispute and seperate from the other half of the country.

And doesn't address the issue of no available mod.

Archi, my logic is if you do it convincingly you have good chance of having it happen. If you jsut say it, it's not going to happen.

My logic is flawless.

 

I'm an avaliable mod.

Earth, I issue an edict that slavery is now illegal in my country. What happens?

 

 

Iconic, then start a thread and we will see who wants to play it.

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

People are excessivley pissed off and start civil warring. You just came out with it completley randomly, without any buildup OR preparation.

People are excessivley pissed off and start civil warring. You just came out with it completley randomly, without any buildup OR preparation.

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

For my hegemony, I have a few questions that I would like answered, then I will be on the road to creation

 

1 - Alternative history leading up to pre-ww2(or 1), so people don't just rush to Germany or America or Britain or Russia. (Cause basically I am finding it had to find a map of that era that isn't just of Europe or actually details who owns what)

 

2 - Equal starting?

 

3 - NPC's are controlled by me, as in they do human stuff.

 

4- Tech tree, or reasonable research?

 

5- Resets every X days

 

6- The system, should it just be cash based, or should population (for armies and income) be taken into account, and even materials?

Great, you just had April 2010 Britian explode by something that actually happened. You need to actually know some context before reacting...and players never give much context.

My logic is flawless.

That statement probably got more laughs than the laughing gas.

Ah, but I base it off of edicts you had issued in the past. If you have said "I issue an Edict to increase civil rights over time" And gave me one good reason to how you go about doing it, then i base it off of what you post Arch.

For my hegemony, I have a few questions that I would like answered, then I will be on the road to creation

 

1 - Alternative history leading up to pre-ww2(or 1), so people don't just rush to Germany or America or Britain or Russia. (Cause basically I am finding it had to find a map of that era that isn't just of Europe or actually details who owns what)

Sounds good, pre ww1 is better

2 - Equal starting?

Yes

3 - NPC's are controlled by me, as in they do human stuff.

I don't like NPC's, they're just a boring opponent (on runescape PKing is fun, killing a goblin is not)

4- Tech tree, or reasonable research?

reasonable research

5- Resets every X days

No, resetting is a lazy system any money needs to be instantly added or on a day by day reset.

6- The system, should it just be cash based, or should population (for armies and income) be taken into account, and even materials?

Materials could be interesting but confusing and annoying in the end, I reccomend cash based.

I raise edicts that mean no other edicts can be raised.

You jsut [bleep]ed yourself then ICU, scince you can't raise any other edicts or raise the Edict to get rid of that Edict.

1 - Alternative history leading up to pre-ww2(or 1), so people don't just rush to Germany or America or Britain or Russia. (Cause basically I am finding it had to find a map of that era that isn't just of Europe or actually details who owns what)

I want to do a ww2 one, but I am waiting for a Christmas Present.

 

And alternative history is difficult to do because people disagree alot.

 

 

2 - Equal starting?

God no.

 

3 - NPC's are controlled by me, as in they do human stuff.

If you like.

 

4- Tech tree, or reasonable research?

Tech Tree guidelines

 

5- Resets every X days

Resets are ok.

6- The system, should it just be cash based, or should population (for armies and income) be taken into account, and even materials?

I think...and this is just me thinking...that each country should get a set number of actions per reset.

Archi's thought pattern:

 

"Hmmm..... I'll just do the opposite of what Iconic says!"

Ah, but I base it off of edicts you had issued in the past. If you have said "I issue an Edict to increase civil rights over time" And gave me one good reason to how you go about doing it, then i base it off of what you post Arch.

 

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.

Ah, but I base it off of edicts you had issued in the past. If you have said "I issue an Edict to increase civil rights over time" And gave me one good reason to how you go about doing it, then i base it off of what you post Arch.

 

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.....

The Edict fails, as the populace has no idea what a nuclear weapon is, nor do they know what Europe is at that time. They do know how to make steel and use wooden plows, But the rest of it is gibberish. Population looses faith in you, nice going.

Yet they don't have any theory of nuclear physics yet.....

Neither did 1900 Russia.

 

 

 

 

Earth:

Amazing, a logical decision. You then get ripped apart by the person you just kicked out the game.

Oh yeah,

 

Perhaps a Roman one :)

 

Mmmkay.

 

I'll set it during the Roman expansion

 

Rome will remain NPC and controlled by me or by any player who REALLY REALLY wants to be, the goal is survival from the Roman empire and your fellow players.

 

If rome is conquered, then ofcourse it is a last man standing scenario.

Archi, population looses faith in you a bit. not enough for a huge rebelion civil war, but enough to make it harder to issue Edicts from now on. And if this happens, i'm going to make it so you have a chance to be reelected as the new leader if it's a civil war and you lose it.

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.