Other - Turn this into Andvari's playground where we'll bro around and talk about bro stuff.

Other - Turn this into Andvari's playground where we'll bro around and talk about bro stuff.

Other - Turn this into Andvari's playground where we'll bro around and talk about bro stuff.

Woah, chill out there for a moment. Getting a bit intimate here, at least buy me a dinner first.

Hey guys, how would you like it if I ran a Hegemony game with a heavy focus on science?

 

Seeing as I'm the only person who studies science in college, I'd be good for a moderator.

 

I can run this when I get time.

Of course science would require a copious amount of mathematics, yes?

Hey guys, how would you like it if I ran a Hegemony game with a heavy focus on science?

YES!!!

Pretty sure Res asked the same thing and no one said anything :P.

 

But yeah, I guess I'd play.

 

 

If it actually runs...Then I say we get a 20 year period to do stuff in our country prior to playing the game.

Cause otherwise we have the first five years where Mather fights global warming, I suspend all civil liberties to foreigners and set up the experimentation camps, and Retech takes control of the rest of South America.

Then everyone else, who hasn't inimately planned how to rule their country do a mad scramble to take control of their neighbours and the game collapses.

Alternia.

Been thinking...

What if we used a point buy to build our leaders? (Or Ruling Body)

5 stats:

Popularity - How easily we can do things inside our own country

Finesse - How easily we can do things outside of our own country

Creativity - How easily we research things

Intelligence - How easily to hide things, and uncover other things

Martial - How well we lead our armies

 

 

I would suggest we use the 25 point, pathfinder system. *4

So 18 becomes 72, 17 becomes 68, ect.

Then we roll a hundred sided die when we want to do something, and if we meet the difficulty check, we do it.

 

So, say you wanted to research phaser guns in 1 turn, the Mod might say that was DC 300, eg, no chance at doing it. Whereas phaser guns in 10 turns might be DC 120. So you have some chance of success, but its not certain.

If you succeed then you get the research whenever you said you would get it.

If you don't succeed then you have to wait until next year to try again.

 

If you wanted to turn all of your people into lizards, then the DC might be 400 because no one, bar you, really wants to be a lizard. But you could begin putting out pamplets and what not to make people more agreeable to the idea. So you choose a percentage of the population to turn to the idea, say 30%, the mod says 'Thats a DC of 90, but 40% is DC 120'

If you hit the target of 90 then 30% of the people are more favourable of becoming lizards so the DC is lowered by 30%.

If you overshoot and hit 130(not 120 but +10 more) then 40% of people are more favourable, so the DC is lowered by 40%.

But, if you undershoot, getting less than 90, then people are offended and the DC is increased by 10% per 10 you fail by.

So if you got 80 then the DC is 10% higher, if you got 70 then the DC is 20% higher.

 

If you were fighting a battle then:

Each side has an Attack and Defence modifer(Which is simply Martial skill/5, +tech bonuses+training bonuses+circumstance bonuses)

Ergo:

Army A has an attack of 23 and a Defence of 20 (And 500 soliders)

Army B has an attack of 21 and a Defence of 30 (And 100 soliders)

 

Army A rolls a d100+23 and gets 93, Army B rolls a d100+30 and gets 72

The difference is 21, so 21 soliders of Army B die.

Army B rolls a d100+21 and gets 59, Army A rolls a d100+20 and gets 83

So the difference is -24, so 24 soliders of Army B die.

 

Battles either end at some preset time (Say Army A's Commander gives instruction to pull back if 50% of the army is destroyed), when no one is left one one of the sides, or until 10 rounds (both sides attack once per round) have passed.

 

If the an army is over 1,000 then it does double the number of deaths (And loses double the number of people if it fails)

2,000 is treble, 3,000 is quadruple, 4,000 is quintuple...and so on.

 

Eg, an army of 50,000 people attacking an army of 3,000 people, rolls 107 verses 31, killing 75*51 soliders, or 3,825 (Or totally anhilating the opposing army).

If they had failed, and got the opposite result, then they would have lost 3,825 men.

When the army of 3,000 people attacked and rolling 83 verses 70, winning by 13, they kill 52(13*4) people.

 

An army anywhere between 1 man and 1,000 men does *1 damage.

(Using a smaller dice for combat, or the full martial modifer is probably a better idea...Given that this system gives a rather large margin of random chance)

 

 

 

Whatever system is being used to pay for all of those various things can still be used.

I still want to try out my whole trading empire thing eventually. (Leave it to me to be the non hostile one) I wouldn't mind the micromanagement if it isn't too much, but I do see conflict with me trying to keep up with everyone else playing if I miss sessions(which is likely I'll miss one here and there). So, I'm not exactly sure how to approach joining my first hegemony. :S

=P Hegemony is played on a day to day basis (and its not like you need to do stuff every day).

Archi, your military idea is bogus.

 

Let's say 100,000 soldiers vs 100,000 soldiers, sent one at a time.

 

 

The off-chance that the 1 soldier wins inflicts thousands of casualties.

Stop with the Mspaintadventures refs, Mather. Please. Anyways, I really prefer this thread as it is, but hell, I could just start up a new thread for game discussions. One post per person for ideas. Then, if one person has a new idea, they edit and bump so we know what persons post we need to look at.

The first one was too fun and the second one was too easy, I couldn't not make them.

 

And the thread you described there already exists, it's stickied.

No, mather. Wrong on both counts.

Archi, your military idea is bogus.

 

Let's say 100,000 soldiers vs 100,000 soldiers, sent one at a time.

 

 

The off-chance that the 1 soldier wins inflicts thousands of casualties.

If you did that, going strictly by the rules...you would either have sent 100,000 soliders at the enemy...or 1.

 

So sending 1 man against 100,000 soliders is a valid tactic.

In an offense that is fairly reasonable...you kill a reasonably large portion of their army with 1 of your guys, though I wouldn't expect you to capture any terrain.

On the defence...you just lost territory because your soliders sat around drinking tea while one of their number died, maybe killing a few thousand of the enemy, but hey, you just lost the Amazon and your people are mad at you.

 

 

 

 

Ultimately...its an idea, and any idea can be abused (the Legal System, for example).

The other alternative, as I originally intended, was that every unit rolled attack and defence, scaled to the size of the army.

Eg for 500 vs 100, the 500 side would go 5 times, then the 100 side would go once, then repeat.

 

However, given the vast tedium of that would kill the game, and probably the Games' Master as well.

 

 

 

If I was running it I would just make an edcuated guess at what happened, though people who like to abuse rules don't like that, so there is an impasse.

Iprefer it to be a case by case basis, with different factors going in. Rules can be bended and broken.

100,000 consecutive attacks against the enemy position, against different flanks.

With one man each? If you had an extreme training regime where everyone was able to kill tons and tons of people. Which I doubt. The attacks would come to nothing. You'd have to group at a central point, to actually take the land, while your enemy takes out your forces, one by one, on the way.

In reality, yes. In the game system, the one person would die if they lost a dice roll, but with almost equal probability if they have the same martial point buys, they can kill several thousand enemies.

Oh. Thats... .. Bogus. Pretty much.. Unless it's assumed they're taken one on one. Then it's half plausible.

Unless you remember that there are only 10 rounds per year, per country (not including getting attacked by multiple countries, or visa versa)

Also...couldn't the army you are attacking...you know...come after you?

 

All of which ignores the simple fact that it could be countered by someone not having a giant blob of an army sitting right there.

 

If you had a less martially minded player...lets call him...."Nather", who decided to get his...."Morwegian"...Gattling Gun Troops, all 100,000 of them...in a blob, to defend against...."Detech's"...Single man army...Then, quite frankly, he deserves to die. :rolleyes:

 

Sarcasm aside, you haven't suggested a viable alternative, you have just pointed out how you would ignore the spirit of the game and of the rules... Games are supposed to be played and winning is something you do at the end of the game, not the very beginning.

 

 

 

And I agree 100% Earth, but those such as Retech don't especially like games where they can't know in advance they are going to win...and as much of a pain Retech is...but we don't have a huge pool of people to choose from, so...

Count me in for the hegemony esque game, especially if the GM grants modifiers for espionage and spies.

I would rather play a balanced game (or one where the mod used common sense that wasn't Archi's common sense) than one that could easily be abused by a giant exploit.

 

Since really that's the main benefit of multiplayer over single-player. Player to player interaction and a mod that doesn't use an arbitrary rules system that a computer could easily emulate. Aka the first hegemony with a mod that wasn't Archi. Or rather a mod without a secure footing, so would have to make choices that were supported by most of the community.