NationStates Jolt Archive

From this thread http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=336999&page=2&pp=15

The Idea:
Set up the six warzones to represent RL locations for historic battles. This'd mean basicly that the warzones' names get changed periodically to be the territories that they represent. (I know this'd cause disruption to the steady passage of events in the warzones, but thats exactly whats supposed to happen)


Lemme give some examples.

The Alamo
Warzone Alamo East + Warzone Alamo West vs the other 4 Warzones representing Mexican territories.

The delegate of WZ Alamo has to try and defend for as long as possible against the mounting forces of the Mexican warzones. Delegates of Alamo East and West have +1 endorsements for as long as they're controlled by the same team


Korean war
Warzone South Korea + Warzone USA vs Warzone North Korea + Warzone China. When both the North and the South are controlled by the same alliance, that side wins.


WW2
Warzone Germany + Warzone Italy + Warzone France vs Warzones USA, Britain and Russia. WZ Germany and Italy get + 3 endorsements automaticly as long as they still hold France.


The extra endorsement thing could be coded, but I think that it could just be 3 UN puppets controlled by a mod or by the Admin who endorse whomever the current delegate is (as long as the requirements are in effect.

Very, very interesting idea, Spoffin; I'm liking it.

Yeah, that's cool

I'm sure that with just a little support this'll get done.

If it goes ahead, I'm Travis, ok?

I'm sure that with just a little support this'll get done.

If it goes ahead, I'm Travis, ok?

Works for me.

pmub

From this thread http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=336999&page=2&pp=15

The Idea:
Set up the six warzones to represent RL locations for historic battles. This'd mean basicly that the warzones' names get changed periodically to be the territories that they represent. (I know this'd cause disruption to the steady passage of events in the warzones, but thats exactly whats supposed to happen)


Lemme give some examples.

The Alamo
Warzone Alamo East + Warzone Alamo West vs the other 4 Warzones representing Mexican territories.

The delegate of WZ Alamo has to try and defend for as long as possible against the mounting forces of the Mexican warzones. Delegates of Alamo East and West have +1 endorsements for as long as they're controlled by the same team


Korean war
Warzone South Korea + Warzone USA vs Warzone North Korea + Warzone China. When both the North and the South are controlled by the same alliance, that side wins.


WW2
Warzone Germany + Warzone Italy + Warzone France vs Warzones USA, Britain and Russia. WZ Germany and Italy get + 3 endorsements automaticly as long as they still hold France.


The extra endorsement thing could be coded, but I think that it could just be 3 UN puppets controlled by a mod or by the Admin who endorse whomever the current delegate is (as long as the requirements are in effect.
That is extremely interesting and sounds appealing. Great idea.

very good idea spoffin

Dog... bone...

Urk... sorry for the lack of response, guys @_@

I for one love the idea, it's just the implementation that may take some codewanking on Max or [violet]'s part.

I'm trying to direct the bosses' attention to this thread. Trying... :headbang:

http://rpstudios.ian-justman.com/junk/CGgoods/RepProdtheModsig2.JPG
~Evil Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~Master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Urk... sorry for the lack of response, guys @_@

I for one love the idea, it's just the implementation that may take some codewanking on Max or [violet]'s part.

I'm trying to direct the bosses' attention to this thread. Trying... :headbang:

http://rpstudios.ian-justman.com/junk/CGgoods/RepProdtheModsig2.JPG
~Evil Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~Master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku
Tanku Rep.

BTW, I'm dead keen for any other suggestions for scenarios (especially ones that don't require extra endorsements so as maybe to remove coding necessities and speed up the process)

This is cool sounding! Nice one Spoffo!

Cold War: US Warzone vs. Communist Russia Warzone
(cold war erupts into violence following something or other.)(no nukes)
Communist Russia has +10% conscription soldiers
US has +10% construction speed for armored vehicles, ships, and aircraft

just an idea

Cold War: US Warzone vs. Communist Russia Warzone
(cold war erupts into violence following something or other.)(no nukes)
Communist Russia has +10% conscription soldiers
US has +10% construction speed for armored vehicles, ships, and aircraft

just an idea
What on earth does "Communist Russia has +10% conscription soldiers" mean?

It means Russia has more cannon fodder.

Putting France in the Axis camp in the WWII scenario is historically bogus, of course, in spite of Vichy. The French lost as many soldiers fighting the nazis as the US and they lost far more civilians. Replace them with Japan, which was a real Axis power (and change the endorsement part).

It means Russia has more cannon fodder.

Putting France in the Axis camp in the WWII scenario is historically bogus, of course, in spite of Vichy. The French lost as many soldiers fighting the nazis as the US and they lost far more civilians. Replace them with Japan, which was a real Axis power (and change the endorsement part).
No, I understand what the words mean, I'm asking how does it affect the scenario.

And France is in the Axis camp because its occupied by the Nazis, and once you've taken France, it becomes easier to attack Germany and Italy.

Just keeping this current

I'm sorry to keep bumping, but I know theres no way to get this done without nagging forever :D

Is this more likely to get seen by admin in the Technical forum?

I'm sorry to keep bumping, but I know theres no way to get this done without nagging forever :D

Is this more likely to get seen by admin in the Technical forum?

I'm not really sure, honestly. Though I think this thread does merit a sticky- there are plenty of good scenario ideas in this thread... now if only one of the codemonkey admins would like... y'know... maybe get online...
:rolleyes:

I'm not really sure, honestly. Though I think this thread does merit a sticky- there are plenty of good scenario ideas in this thread... now if only one of the codemonkey admins would like... y'know... maybe get online...
:rolleyes:Lazy codemonkeys :D

Lazy codemonkeys :D
Give them a banana and they'll all come :D

*gets one of those cool "Forum Sp@mer" titles :D *

Give them a banana and they'll all come :D
Probably not gonna do that.

You know I have been trying to avoid suggestion topics lately but curiousity finally killed my kitten and I had to look in, I say this, I like this Idea, it is a really neat idea, Kudos and Caek to the Ideal thinky person responsible.

You know I have been trying to avoid suggestion topics lately but curiousity finally killed my kitten and I had to look in, I say this, I like this Idea, it is a really neat idea, Kudos and Caek to the Ideal thinky person responsible.Thank you Loop.

From the other thread:


i think it will take some time before a new warzone concept will be available.

Maybe in the meantime you (the game mods or the admins) can close 3 or 4 warzones? That way there will probably be more interest in the remaining warzones.

*pokes codemonkeys with pointy stick*

Dance you simians!

Can anyone think of a way (for the Alamo scenario) that re-enforcements could be restricted but invasions could still happen? Delegate doesn't recieve any more endorsements after day 4 or something? Or would that just mean that the defender group would just rotate the delegate when endorsements dropped too low?

Arghhhh!!!!

Well the Alamo did get a small amount of re-enforcements after the siege started. About 35 people, I can't remember who, but if you remember the lookout even shot one of them because he couldn't see who it was. Mabey you could just limit the number of re-enforcements, mabye set it at no more than 10 endorsments after siege starts.

Another idea could be Warzone Wake Island vs. Warzone Japan? Or Warzone Flying Tigers vs. Warzone Japan for control of Warzone Burma(SPL?) Road?

You could always have Warzone North USA vs. Warzone South USA. The US Civil War. This would not need bonus endorsments.

Well the Alamo did get a small amount of re-enforcements after the siege started. About 35 people, I can't remember who, but if you remember the lookout even shot one of them because he couldn't see who it was. Mabey you could just limit the number of re-enforcements, mabye set it at no more than 10 endorsments after siege starts.

Another idea could be Warzone Wake Island vs. Warzone Japan? Or Warzone Flying Tigers vs. Warzone Japan for control of Warzone Burma(SPL?) Road?

You could always have Warzone North USA vs. Warzone South USA. The US Civil War. This would not need bonus endorsments.
The Civil War would want to be split into a number of different territories, so you have the secure heartlands of the north and the south, and then the disputed states where the battles would be taking place.

Or because some people are not sad and pathetic enough to RP imaginary tanks invading imaginary lands. And please don't comment from now unless you have something productive to add.

No more of this shit in this thread. Each to their own and no insulting the other. Clear?

No more of this shit in this thread. Each to their own and no insulting the other. Clear?
Sorry 'bout that, I should be able to keep a lid on my mouth. I think its a little unfair to keep only my post there though.

the world war 2 thing dose sound like fun

Ok, I've read this thread, and this is a very interesting idea and has the support of many members of the game. That's enough to make me consider it.

Now, the coding aspects. I've got no idea even where to begin (though I have a few interesting ideas), and any ideas that I have involve some major changes to the codebase. That being said, I will look into it and talk with both Max and [violet] about some of the ideas.

I basically see two ways of doing this. One is to have referees to judge victory. They may also be able to be used to handle the bonus endorsements, etc. This would be a difficult and timeconsuming job. Thus, it would not be a job for any moderator.

Otherwise, we need to make the game aware of alliences (I can think of a way of doing so) and then have it calculate some of this stuff, including victories. The extra endorsements is the hardest part.

Changes like this (especially if I go the code route) definitely require approval from on-high. I will continue to think on this, however, and get back to you.

Ok, I've read this thread, and this is a very interesting idea and has the support of many members of the game. That's enough to make me consider it.

Now, the coding aspects. I've got no idea even where to begin (though I have a few interesting ideas), and any ideas that I have involve some major changes to the codebase. That being said, I will look into it and talk with both Max and [violet] about some of the ideas.

I basically see two ways of doing this. One is to have referees to judge victory. They may also be able to be used to handle the bonus endorsements, etc. This would be a difficult and timeconsuming job. Thus, it would not be a job for any moderator.

Otherwise, we need to make the game aware of alliences (I can think of a way of doing so) and then have it calculate some of this stuff, including victories. The extra endorsements is the hardest part.

Changes like this (especially if I go the code route) definitely require approval from on-high. I will continue to think on this, however, and get back to you.

I think that the simplest way to do it would be to have judges, but with very specialised critera, IE: to prove that you've won, you post an agreed-upon phrase (The Alamo now belongs to XYZ, or whatever) in whatever warzones are required to win, and then a mod or other appropriate judge, upon seeing it, could post the result in the thread where the tournamount/ fight would be set up.

Bump the sticky.

this looks like fun

Sorry for taking so long to address this. It's an interesting idea, but not one I personally support. It's a very uneasy fit with our UN endorsement system -- those are votes, not bullets. NationStates doesn't have real war and isn't supposed to; this idea would introduce a kind of pseudo-war that isn't really combat and isn't really endorsements.

I also think it would require a substantial amount of coding work; maybe even an open-ended amount, if people kept wanting variations on the initial setup. I'd be more interested in a kind of generalized system for creating region-specific endorsement rules, but even so that sounds more like something for NS2.

*sighs*

Warzones seem destined to go to waste then. Thanks anyhow.

Maybe set up some sort of entry thing so that the warzones would be effected by a status given only to people in it, so as if another person went in, it wouldnt much effect the status of the current game etc.

Who cares about war?! Want I wanna know is when are they going to improve the business system?! I DEMAND MORE BUSINESS!!! By the way, stop by The Land of Unmentionable Doom for some really great dollar-deals on lowriders, AK-47s, fine Swiss cheeses, and real estate!!! :)

Seeing as [violet]'s given this a no, there's no reason for this to remain a sticky.