the cold war (i'm serious)

[Hereno]

colors lets us align alliances with alliances. or at least it did. but it didn't really do a whole lot because there were a lot of colors. but what if we simplified it down to two: red vs blue, the cold war.

 

but it's more complicated than that. just having two sides doesn't really do anything for us. but what was one of the biggest tension things in the real world? nuclear weapons.

 

i'm not entirely sure what i think is the best way to use the mechanic, but i think ideas like having all nukes auto-launch, having a tension mechanic to trigger it, and having nuclear buildup contribute to tension could be factored in. you could even use it to add in an events system. have events that raise or lower tension, or trigger world events like the cuban missile crisis.

 

i'm not saying actually add in soviet and united states spheres - that would be pretty limiting. but you can adopt the idea to orbis. just the fact that the actions of one team can negatively affect the other team at the expense of that team will encourage people to take it seriously - any backstory you came up with would just be flavor.

 

and since nukes already exist, the hardest part is already done for you - balancing them and adding them. everything else is pretty straight-forward, i think.

[Ikhan]

I like this idea.

[Redael]

I hate this idea, we should, limit the complex diplomatic sphere of orbis to two sides

[Fronin]

Abolish alliances, split everyone on an arbitrary basis into three colors and have elections based on population to appoint alliance officials.

[----]

I do like this idea. However, I do feel that there should be more than two colours. Remember that the world more typically falls into at least three spheres. If anything remember Eric Blair's three superpower system described in 'The Last Man in Europe'. 

 

Nevertheless, the proposed mechanics would make a very interesting gameplay.

[Andrezj Kolarov]

It would be good if P&W actually did have ideological divisions and alliances with their own politics. I mean I can look through the PnW Wiki at all the wars in this game, and it's like "So what were they even fighting about?".

[Licorice]

It would be good if P&W actually did have ideological divisions and alliances with their own politics. I mean I can look through the PnW Wiki at all the wars in this game, and it's like "So what were they even fighting about?".

 

fun?

[Hereno]

I do like this idea. However, I do feel that there should be more than two colours. Remember that the world more typically falls into at least three spheres. If anything remember Eric Blair's three superpower system described in 'The Last Man in Europe'. 

 

Nevertheless, the proposed mechanics would make a very interesting gameplay.

What if it were possible to remain unaligned? The IRL comparison would be the Non-Aligned Movement.

 

The only problem I see is how do we keep the sides even, especially if not being on one is an option. I think the best way to handle it would be to do the color stock bonus that color originally had... you get an income percentage that is larger if you're on the weaker side, and no bonus whatsoever if you choose to opt out and stay neutral.

 

Maybe alignment should be completely alliance-based, to encourage people to join them.

 

Just tossing around thoughts..

[----]

It would be good if P&W actually did have ideological divisions and alliances with their own politics. I mean I can look through the PnW Wiki at all the wars in this game, and it's like "So what were they even fighting about?".

Good question. A possible answer could be memes, personal 'insults', silly whims, and of course, pure nonsense.

 

You raise a good point about this game, namely its apparent lack of true political behaviour. Orbis has been turned into another internet meme generator rather than a simulation of politics.

 

I came to Politics&War seeking a more active manifestation of NationStates. Initially the game had hope, with the red socialist alliance, Socialist International, ranking in the top ten alliances (I know, since I was part of that alliance as the first Poland from 23.10.2014 to 12.2014). However, after the Spring of 2015, the game took a turn for the worse, with a flood of less civilised players bringing less politics and more stupidity. 

 

I really hope that the game can become a better political simulator. Orbis really has such potential, should the prevailing player culture improve. Just look at the Forum's national affairs subsection and how well true politics are simulated. 

[----]

What if it were possible to remain unaligned? The IRL comparison would be the Non-Aligned Movement.

 

The only problem I see is how do we keep the sides even, especially if not being on one is an option. I think the best way to handle it would be to do the color stock bonus that color originally had... you get an income percentage that is larger if you're on the weaker side, and no bonus whatsoever if you choose to opt out and stay neutral.

 

Maybe alignment should be completely alliance-based, to encourage people to join them.

 

Just tossing around thoughts..

 

Maybe non-aligned is a good option. However, I liked your original idea that a nation had to align itself to one sphere. I simply though that the proposed quantity of spheres was too limited. Nevertheless, the other aspects seeming like a good solution to the present state of political unconsciousness.  

[Andrezj Kolarov]

GPA is pretty much the non-aligned movement.

[Hereno]

Maybe non-aligned is a good option. However, I liked your original idea that a nation had to align itself to one sphere. I simply though that the proposed quantity of spheres was too limited. Nevertheless, the other aspects seeming like a good solution to the present state of political unconsciousness.

I'm sort of imagining it like a room with three turrets equidistant from the center and each other. You can use them to shoot the other gunners, but you can only shoot one at a time, leaving yourself vulnerable. A Mexican stand-off with game mechanics that allow large groups of players to have extra power against other groups of players. And just because there are 3 doesn't mean each are used - one could become a battleground between two larger sides, reminiscent of NS battlegrounds. Play it right, control both, use them to declare war and get significant bonuses.

 

holy shit, here's an idea - what if the "turret" so to speak is the ability for one person on the team to auto-launch every nuke in every nation on that team at one time? LMFAO tell me this can happen please someone

[Hereno]

are we allowed to bump threads?