CYOC Main Thread- LOOK HERE FIRST

Forum game hosted by Flatley

Moderators: mat.gopack, Zander, chrisman39

Are polls useful?

NO!
2
10%
Yes?
5
24%
Maybe.
1
5%
Mobius is overrated.
13
62%
 
Total votes : 21

Re: CYOC Main Thread- LOOK HERE FIRST

Postby RedSun » 09 Aug 2019, 11:05

So is what you want more activity and more conflicts?

Here’s my view on the cause of the issue and potential solutions. But they’re pretty radical and doubt will be implemented.

So when I first got here I got involved in a bunch of conflicts. I fought over Shanghai, in Brazil and Centralia-Turkmenistan, and then the League War. After the League War, I sorta gave up cause 1 SP beat me and my alliance. My allies ditched me and I was left being completely run over by Sybus and was about to get on a plane the next day so really didn’t have time to actually negotiate. Even if I had the time, I was in no position to make demands and basically would’ve had to give him even more if I stayed.
What’s driven my policy of avoiding conflicts is because of the vagueness of how tech works. What it seems like is that foreign policy is driven by Venus, Matt, Mobius and Sybus. Your the big 4 and the rest of us can never catch up. In real life countries rise and fall all the time. The Persians were powerful thousands of years ago and now they’re economically in shambles. The British controlled half the world before and now all they have is their own little island. The Spanish controlled basically all of the Americas and various islands around the globe and now they own nothing.
While I’m not proposing that we should have such radical change that random countries can control basically as much as Mobius rn and then only control Nepal I do think there needs to be common enough change in terms of who leads foreign policy.
I’ve sort of begun following the king path of focusing on reforming my internal country and making that interesting cause I know I can’t compete on the global stage. I know Jon once said to me that what drove his pacifism was he didn’t understand how the whole judging thing exactly worked. Basically newer players are forever trapped behind the big 4. I’ve been on site for 2 years now and I’m still not able to get very involved. MK has been here a year longer and Cyon has been here 2 years longer. Both of them still can’t compete with you guys. If you want for more conflict then there needs to be a restructuring of power. If that doesn’t happen I guarantee that newer players will get frustrated and become pacifist or just not stick around. I know the big 4 have been around longer but it’s not healthy for the game for you guys to permanently control what goes on in the game.
Even if nothing gets done I’m still gonna be here but I don’t expect to get involved in conflicts, even Cyon who assassinated one of my leaders I wasn’t able to put something together to retaliate. Basically, now I’m pretty much content just siting in my corner of the world since it doesn’t seem like much will happen.

Another thing but less important is the multiple planets. I get why it may have seemed cool initially, maybe you had more players back then. But having 2 players on Mars and 1 player on Venus kind of takes away the possibility of tensions. No fight is gonna happen on either planet and while we could use you guys on earth to bring up the players on earth from 6 (2 of which are in Mobius) to 9 and promoted more geopolitical conflict there. I’m not saying that offworld colonies aren’t okay and space conflict isn’t cool but I think the focus should be on earth. If we have more people on earth we have more people to fight over less space and it hopefully will drive conflict.

You mentioned to two sides to the global order. It’s natural for that to exist right now, I don’t think it’s a huge problem except for the fact that it kills smaller conflict, it eventually should disappear or a war between the two factions should occur to finish that period in history. Temporary periods of mega alliances are good but eventually it needs to return to a multilateral world for smaller conflicts to occur. Or else no one is gonna touch someone in the other alliance and then no one wants to upset neutral countries out of fear that they will join the other side.

Another thing is that there shouldn’t be gigantic costs to war. I liked Mat and Cons prewar arrangement where they agreed on what the victories of war would be. If people are afraid of losing a bunch of territory then they are gonna back out. I watch Cons swallow up all of China in one gulp. I’m not gonna challenge him. Cyon backed off when Cons invaded Argentina in League because he was afraid of losing his core territory. If there is a previous arrangement of what the winner wins and the loser loses and it’s kept relatively minor, still helpful to the winner but not crippling to the loser then that will encourage conflict since people won’t fear conflict as much.

So if I misrepresented anyone here that wasn’t intentional.
These are just my 2 cents on why there isn’t a lot of conflict around here primarily from my POV since I can mainly explain why I’ve avoided a war for the last 2 centuries.
Whether you guys agree or not it’s up to you. You guys can decide if these are real issues you see and want to fix or not. And can work on potential solutions or not.
Don’t get mad at me cause I’m just being honest about my perspective.
Groups:
The Glorious Holy Asterian Empire in CYOC
RedSun
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: 10 Jun 2017, 00:21
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1156)
All-game rating: (1173)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: CYOC Main Thread- LOOK HERE FIRST

Postby jonisilk » 09 Aug 2019, 15:39

I think that pacifism was always in the PCGs DNA from the start, as I figured that was the safest way to play from an NP position (because who wants to beat up on the little guy, right?, plus, I had my own little personal stories of internal conflict to tell) and pacafism became a "brand-identity" kinda thing, which has been pretty effective at keeping me out of shit-storms, and left me free to take only what I needed from the world around me and create my own little stories.

International-scale-conflict was never really a part of that plan, so I decided to try and play the game in a slightly different way to how I imagined others had, and the money we saved from having a costly military was able to go into social projects instead, like housing, education and healthcare. It wasn't just the game that was new to me, but all the different techs and their possibilities for telling other stories (I really came here just to start writing stuff again, as an exercise, not expecting it to continue as long as it has, but it's taken on a life and character of it's own and now... I'm invested in it dammit!), but 90% of what everyone sold were weapons of war of some description, and no discernible way to really tell whose tech is how much better than anyone else's, so I figured there was a gap in the market for a player that did something other than go to war.

Red is right that I was quite daunted by the prospect of judging stuff (and I still am actually) and I've probably mentioned before that I have autism, so for me, I need something to be as clearly defined as it can be. As such, the problem I have with judging (especially conflict) is the grey areas, and there's a lot of it (only some of which has become clearer with time, like how long people have spent developing or refining a tech, it's previous performance in combat, etc), which is why I've tried not to volunteer for much, but have done a couple of smaller ones when asked.

Or does it just come down to numbers? If so, the bigger boy wins (almost) every time. I've also got probably the least experience of war in the game (a couple of brief skirmishes in South America, about two centuries apart), so I'd probably not make the best judge for a war.

Not sure where I was going with this. will post more if I remember/come up with anything relevant to the discussion.

Edit: Pre-war agreements! That was the other thing I wanted to say. Yeah, I'm in favour of those.
Last edited by jonisilk on 09 Aug 2019, 17:27, edited 1 time in total.
The enemies of my enemies are not necessarily my friend, but they may still be useful.

Member of the Classicists.
User avatar
jonisilk
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: 21 Jan 2014, 15:55
Location: City of Selinopolis, Frasta, Mars.
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1312)
All-game rating: (1427)
Timezone: GMT

Re: CYOC Main Thread- LOOK HERE FIRST

Postby Subotai45 » 09 Aug 2019, 16:20

Red,

I'd say so - I'd like more activity and conflict, but that doesn't necessarily need to be large-scale judged wars for me. Your ideas aren't especially radical - every MP-level player since I've joined who has been around long enough to see that he's not going to catch up to the SPs any time soon has it, and we've made frequent reforms to address the issue, although I do concede that we've hit a period of stagnation so far as major players go and we can work on discussing if the situation is ok, and if not, how to address it.

One thing that's important to note is that the current structure isn't how it's always been. Before us, it was Mobius/TR/Sybus, and the current Mobius/UMC/UPF/Cooperative does mark a change, in that two of the three major powers have gone. Before them, maybe Zander can answer. Now, maybe it is a flaw that our cycles are so long. We don't have a mechanism, really, to fix that. But it does promise that if you stick around long enough, it will change. Persia will rise and fall, it is just going to take a fair sight longer than history.

(Digression: I don't want to AAR wars too much in the particular, but League could have been a shining example of how a collection of a few medium-sized players can take down a larger one, so don't think about it as Cons stomped y'all and you had no hope - it really no-shit could have turned out either way).

I think we've also been looking at this from different views. There's a bunch of older folks concerned about the issue, and we've wrote BoSS legislation to get the situation to what I'd consider "A new player should be able to join, and in a reasonable time, be able to have a strong influence on foreign affairs." This, I think, is a vast improvement over the past, and I think holds true. You join, in a year or so you're roughly at 1b people so you have a pop base, and you've been given OP-level starting tech that lets your average unit go man-to-man without too many disadvantages, plus whatever new stuff you research. Tech's a hard thing to discuss. I hate it, and we don't have a videogame style system where "Cerulean Lasers = +50% laser attack" to easily compare techs. It's judge discretion and that vagueness can be challenging. The alternative, as I see it, is hugely limiting creativity (Digression: I know I said I don't want to AAR shit but if you've got shellshock from the stuff I judged and want to know why, so you can avoid it, just PM me the judging paragraph or the event and I'll explain how tech mattered, but that's not here).

I know you know how the judging process works in basic, but it seems like people don't know what exactly a judge considers if they haven't fought much (or judged). That might be a separate post from me on the judging discussion thread. But in short, quantity, quality, and strategy. Quality is usually things like tech, but it can also be training. Strategy is where you have the chance to really shine (or step in it) and can include how effectively you use terrain and such. We aren't expecting Pattons here, but it can help you.

On the planet thing - the reason we did it wasn't for "cool", it was b/c we ran out of space on Earth. We have a fair amount right now. If we did decide to relocate the UPF, it would end up taking up a huge chunk of Eurasia (unless the intent was "sorry bud, we're cutting you down to tiny"), and if we relocate King, lets say that takes most of the rest. We still have North America, but that can fit one of two players at full size (eg Asteria isn't an SP, but they're about as big as Matt) and we haven't even discussed the PCG yet. The problem is if we locate the third of the game that's off-planet onto Earth, we get real close to filling up again. Plus, it's a lot to ask people to ditch 4/5 years of flavor and scrap all their planetary shields/long-time efforts to marry all the martian nobles (king)/etc. We do have procedures to relocate lore on BOSS moves, but it's more moving a monument or defense installation and less moving literally everything. I know that the community would probably allow an everything-move because they know how inconvenient it is and people are generally OK, but it still means I have to figure out where in Kazakhstan my secret city is and Jon has to move the founding tree and King has to figure out which new sites are holy. It's a lot of work is my point, and I'm not sure it helps matters.

One thing I'll mention is that I also like the prewar arrangement - but it also prevents real shifts in the balance of power. If you're going to make a bid for SP and it relies on conquering half of Cooperative Asia, you can't make a minor negotiated war for it. How do you have a negotiated war that also allows for large power shifts?

Jon,

Good story of how you branded peace - I think you've done a great job of setting your own path. If you ever have a desire to judge and something pops up, let me know, because I've done it a couple times and I can walk you through it.
User avatar
Subotai45
 
Posts: 12453
Joined: 08 Oct 2012, 22:55
Location: Pitt
All-game rating: 4127
Timezone: GMT-9

Re: CYOC Main Thread- LOOK HERE FIRST

Postby kingpie3 » 09 Aug 2019, 20:01

Yea, that's a pretty good explanation of how I feel to an extent. I don't personally have an issue with the ideological division I was just kinda questioning whether it was gonna end in me having to fight a war and/or just a permanent two bloc system. I'm not too interested in offworld politics atm so whether or not it continues doesn't bother me much. But I disagree that the game needs the deep rooted socialist vs. "reactive" narrative in order to have that spark of activity and debate.

On a certain level that's why I never had an issue with the rise of the division to begin with. I didn't care for the fact that it originated in OOC frustration, but IG it was a bold new step that shook up the alliance system and provided at least a couple interesting disputes for the game. Likewise, I don't think a shift away from ideology into areas like terrorism or spheres would decrease the amount of day-to-day interaction and transnational disputes. The game takes on a character of its own but the issues that define IG interactions are player determined by way of what we choose to emphasize.

There was a conscious shift to push CYOC towards a socialist/capitalist dichotomy and the fact that we're discussing whether or not to maintain it recognizes that we can change. If we want to chart out the new phase of gameplay with a different central struggle defining international relations, we can do that. It's a matter of countries finding their niche like they have now and letting the game go from there.

Which is not to suggest that ideology as a whole be thrown out. In fact, I'm not really suggesting anything now that I think about it lol. Like I said, it's not a huge deal to me (and I assume some other players) either way. But the very act of being a nation is ideological to a degree so it's not like we should expect diametrically opposed powers to get along like there aren't difference. But I do think the broad emphasis of world affairs can shift to other topics while keeping up activity and international disputes.
The Techabaun Federation in CYOC

Unless both sides win, no agreement can be permanent.
- Jimmy Carter
User avatar
kingpie3
 
Posts: 6656
Joined: 25 Feb 2012, 22:55
Location: Florida
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: CYOC Main Thread- LOOK HERE FIRST

Postby Subotai45 » 09 Aug 2019, 23:13

I doubt that any unwilling players are going to be forced into the broader ideological conflict. The Reds, in addition to being fine upstanding folks, the kind you could bring home to ma, are also very hesitant about pushing someone violently towards the capitalist team. The capitalists - no offense - have a few more loose cannons, but it's still a situation where they may attack, but that'd be completely unrelated to the ideological blocs, and they (Musashi) recognize that it's a problem. There was a good meme 'bout it.

Permanent is also hard to say - I know a few players are intending to shift politics in a way that would alter the blocs, but not change the central players in them. It could be a situation where we have two blocs that just kind of trot across the political spectrum and dance around each other. Or it could dissolve into the ol' Venus and Cairo groups. Who knows? I don't think it's permanent, because people change up their countries a lot and if Mobius goes red, we obviously have to throw the blocs out the window and I guess just become all happy commie friends. Plus there's a lot of wiggle room with people who aren't hella close to the blocs to form a "Third Way" (although multipolar structures aren't as stable).
User avatar
Subotai45
 
Posts: 12453
Joined: 08 Oct 2012, 22:55
Location: Pitt
All-game rating: 4127
Timezone: GMT-9

Re: CYOC Main Thread- LOOK HERE FIRST

Postby RedSun » 10 Aug 2019, 10:22

So I was kind of thinking about the cycles.
Your talking about having a Great War with maybe 7 powers? What if we had 4 major powers and every 50-150 years there’s a big war and the losing major powers get replaced by two of the minor winning powers.
The priority list would be in order of who got here: (so I’m last)
I’m not sure if the order everyone got here but hypothetically let’s say
King
Jon
Beads
MK
Red

So then if three of these players joined the winning side only the top two on the list would become major powers. And maybe the max term to be in power is 300 years? That’s two years irl. If your not a major power anymore then your put at the bottom of the list but if you join the right side of the next war you’ll probably become a major power.
Idk it was an idea but maybe it’s too much change. Plus ik it’d irritate players who’ve been here longer that they may not be #1 anymore.

On the planetary stuff ik. But I’ve been here two years and I’ve yet to see another player stick around. I understand the affect it’d have on lore and all that stuff, I was just saying that since your playing a role in global affairs and are one of the main drivers it’d make more sense to have you on earth. If everyone was on earth there’s would be more room for potential conflict.
(And we could stick one of you guys in Africa. The guy there hasn’t been here since I joined so u guys sure he’s coming back? Also there used to be a guy on Antarctica so there’s space there.)

That’s a good point on the pre-war arrangement. But if we’re for real if I fought Cons for China I’d be obliterated and would end up having to give up half my territory.

As for technology, it may be good if we had a distinction between civilian and military technology. Also in reality tech becomes outdated after a while.
So if we say tech is dated for 200 years then we’d have roughly 40 techs per player. (4 techs researched every 20 years).
We could have players identify 10 techs as specialized (their country is slightly superior).
And SP’s could have 10 more of their techs boosted compared to everyone elses. (Assuming we had SP rotation).
If someone wanted to change one of the technologies on their list they’d need to post it in the tech and development thread. Other than that we’d just assume that they are upgrading their shields and upgrading their planes to be on par with everyone else during that time period.
This is very different than how it’s done right now. But this would provide more concrete explanations of how good tech is. It’d encourage players to buy Specialized Mattibean Missiles or Cyonian Computer Parts. And also shows where every country has an edge.
As for blueprint purchases then the country would be able to produce it as long as it was on the foreign country’s list who sold it to them. If it was removed then they’d need to replace one of their techs for it.
Civilian technologies like the Tree of Life, or Hyperloops, or Flying Cars. Anything that isn’t to your advantage militarily could be on a separate list. We could decide what the limit should be.
The problem with this is again that everyone here would probably need to scrap some of their technologies and prioritize a few. I’m pretty sure I have more than 40 techs researched so everyone else here probably has more. It was just a theory on how to simplify technology and maybe you guys could get a better idea than this from this.

Anyways, those were just ideas on how I think the game could be improved. I didn’t really think any of them would be implemented.
If people don’t want to scrap this game but wanted to try those suggestions where we are all on earth, tech is different, and have a cycle of rotation in terms of major powers we could try it on a variant.
Basically the same rules as here but with those few differences and we could try it out and see how it ends up. If it goes good we could implement it here and if not idk.
I believe those modifications would improve the game but it’s a pretty big shift from what we have now so understand if people wouldn’t want to implement them.
Groups:
The Glorious Holy Asterian Empire in CYOC
RedSun
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: 10 Jun 2017, 00:21
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1156)
All-game rating: (1173)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: CYOC Main Thread- LOOK HERE FIRST

Postby kingpie3 » 11 Aug 2019, 20:01

RedSun wrote:So I was kind of thinking about the cycles.
Your talking about having a Great War with maybe 7 powers? What if we had 4 major powers and every 50-150 years there’s a big war and the losing major powers get replaced by two of the minor winning powers.
The priority list would be in order of who got here: (so I’m last)
I’m not sure if the order everyone got here but hypothetically let’s say
King
Jon
Beads
MK
Red

So then if three of these players joined the winning side only the top two on the list would become major powers. And maybe the max term to be in power is 300 years? That’s two years irl. If your not a major power anymore then your put at the bottom of the list but if you join the right side of the next war you’ll probably become a major power.
Idk it was an idea but maybe it’s too much change. Plus ik it’d irritate players who’ve been here longer that they may not be #1 anymore.

On the planetary stuff ik. But I’ve been here two years and I’ve yet to see another player stick around. I understand the affect it’d have on lore and all that stuff, I was just saying that since your playing a role in global affairs and are one of the main drivers it’d make more sense to have you on earth. If everyone was on earth there’s would be more room for potential conflict.
(And we could stick one of you guys in Africa. The guy there hasn’t been here since I joined so u guys sure he’s coming back? Also there used to be a guy on Antarctica so there’s space there.)

That’s a good point on the pre-war arrangement. But if we’re for real if I fought Cons for China I’d be obliterated and would end up having to give up half my territory.

As for technology, it may be good if we had a distinction between civilian and military technology. Also in reality tech becomes outdated after a while.
So if we say tech is dated for 200 years then we’d have roughly 40 techs per player. (4 techs researched every 20 years).
We could have players identify 10 techs as specialized (their country is slightly superior).
And SP’s could have 10 more of their techs boosted compared to everyone elses. (Assuming we had SP rotation).
If someone wanted to change one of the technologies on their list they’d need to post it in the tech and development thread. Other than that we’d just assume that they are upgrading their shields and upgrading their planes to be on par with everyone else during that time period.
This is very different than how it’s done right now. But this would provide more concrete explanations of how good tech is. It’d encourage players to buy Specialized Mattibean Missiles or Cyonian Computer Parts. And also shows where every country has an edge.
As for blueprint purchases then the country would be able to produce it as long as it was on the foreign country’s list who sold it to them. If it was removed then they’d need to replace one of their techs for it.
Civilian technologies like the Tree of Life, or Hyperloops, or Flying Cars. Anything that isn’t to your advantage militarily could be on a separate list. We could decide what the limit should be.
The problem with this is again that everyone here would probably need to scrap some of their technologies and prioritize a few. I’m pretty sure I have more than 40 techs researched so everyone else here probably has more. It was just a theory on how to simplify technology and maybe you guys could get a better idea than this from this.

Anyways, those were just ideas on how I think the game could be improved. I didn’t really think any of them would be implemented.
If people don’t want to scrap this game but wanted to try those suggestions where we are all on earth, tech is different, and have a cycle of rotation in terms of major powers we could try it on a variant.
Basically the same rules as here but with those few differences and we could try it out and see how it ends up. If it goes good we could implement it here and if not idk.
I believe those modifications would improve the game but it’s a pretty big shift from what we have now so understand if people wouldn’t want to implement them.


I’m up for trying these suggestions in a variant and bringing what works to vanilla CYOC. There’s always room for improvement as far as power balancing and turn over. While like Subs said, there have been some shifts in power, the rate at which that happens could be adjusted. As for moving to one planet, I’m not dead set against it. I wouldn’t have a big problem engineering some Baunairi exodus from Mars and taking a chunk of Africa or Antarctica.
The Techabaun Federation in CYOC

Unless both sides win, no agreement can be permanent.
- Jimmy Carter
User avatar
kingpie3
 
Posts: 6656
Joined: 25 Feb 2012, 22:55
Location: Florida
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: CYOC Main Thread- LOOK HERE FIRST

Postby Subotai45 » 11 Aug 2019, 22:58

I like the idea of specialized techs, but I don’t like a formal SP system. Right now, it’s just convenient nomenclature, there’s no institutionalized advantages. The number is similarly arbitrary - I could say that Jon or King are SPs rather than cons, on account of their roughly equal population and greater international influence (albeit peaceful) with strong and diversified economies.

I do like procedures that make it easier to pass but I’m not sure boosting SP power or relying on megawars is the way to do it - because that means someone needs to judge a 7-man war occasionally, after we hit a period where everyone tries to actively recruit into their blocs.
User avatar
Subotai45
 
Posts: 12453
Joined: 08 Oct 2012, 22:55
Location: Pitt
All-game rating: 4127
Timezone: GMT-9

Re: CYOC Main Thread- LOOK HERE FIRST

Postby mat.gopack » 12 Aug 2019, 15:35

One thing to note about the formation of the ideological groups is that it wasn't *actually* something anyone really wanted. When Venus was going through its revolution, I did talk to subs/narwhal about it - but mostly that was setting up potential proxy wars over the 'right' strain of socialism (who doesn't love leftist in-fighting?) - with Venus being far more posadist/WMD happy. But the Belt War is really at the source of it - on my end it was essentially the only wargoal that would have brought me in (the discord-enabled SNAFU there), and on subs' end it was like a cabal that had formed to pounce on him the moment he had his first real war (though the goal was onerous). It basically drove him into an alliance with me, and I think he still doesn't feel safe.

Anyways, the issue of SP power is always a tough one to really gauge. I've long thought the previous way we brought new players up to speed was far too slow - which is why we did a few additional changes to try to speed it up (the big new dump of weapons/tech to the baseline one that me + subs did a while back, a higher starting population, and the boon system that was put in place - but never actually tested). That does the trick of getting new players, within two or three months or so, to a level capable of contributing in any real war - should they choose to.

The flip side of that is that it's not a guarantee either side will win - and with most of the SPs/Great Powers that have been in CYOC, there's typically at least one aspect that they focus on or that would need to be handled in order to beat them. Eg, I'm the easiest example to see there - you need to have a plan vs missiles and heavy defensive setups to beat me, otherwise you'll get carved up.

The war between Cons and Redsun/beads/kingpie is an odd example as well. I still think that, if Cyon and the Entinates had actually been committed to it, it would have been a close war. As it was, Asteria was fighting in a very poor situation on its own vs an enemy that outnumbered it significantly - and I wouldn't describe them as crushed/dominated, it was a fighting retreat. If Cyon hadn't been in a strange teardown of its military (and fought for more than just show - #Terrasub :P ) and if the Entinates had mobilized an army and transported it to China, it would have been far different. (Eg - the Entinates could fairly easily field a powerful military force, and an additional 50 million well armed/equipped soldiers in China is a substantial number - and not hard at all for them to achieve.) It was just an unfortunate situation all around for Asteria - and I think that the latest Cooperative revamp of their military, while making it potentially better vs great power armies that don't rely on numbers (eg, my weapons), it would give Asteria much more of a fighting chance even in a one on one.

In any case, it's a fair question to ask. I tend to think we've got it in a fairly good position military wise right now - a new player could join and two-three months later provide a sizable, important force in a Great War even though they might not be the centerpiece of it. The amount of assistance I was expecting that the Entinates could provide in that war vs Cons could have been matched by a player in China who'd played for a bit, as an example. One thing that's possible is that new players don't specialize enough, or don't make a big enough deal of it for it to get through the older players' thick skulls - and that might play a big role in it.

Eg, I think of my forces, and it's easy to know it'll be long range, high firepower, defenses, and expensive - with comparatively few infantry and a heavy, heavy focus on missiles/defenses. If you think of Mobius, you can think of a lot of powerful mass drivers (Mjolnirs), huge untapped manpower/production reserves, clones, and navy. If you think of Domuia, it's traditionally been massive waves of droids, tons of air units, and commanders. Venus has space + cyber tech. Cyon has droids + cyber tech. It's pretty easy to think of the strengths of their focuses in my mind. Maybe that's something that should be explained a bit more or emphasized more? A new player explicitly focusing on, eg, their air force, their defenses, or their navy would be much quicker to make an impact than one focusing on trying to make something well rounded from the start.

I know as a judge, if there's a hypothetical Atlantis new player that pops up and they have a huge focus on their navy - I'm going to take that focus into account when judging them. And with the way CYOC is wired currently, such a navy (although debatable in true power) could fairly easily get to one of the more powerful ones in the world. And at that point, if used properly, that can obviously have a big impact (or, alternatively, fail horrifically. Eg, not thinking about orbital bombardment or long range missile/railgun fire and fighting against a space power or long range focused one).

Does my understanding of it seem off? I tend to view a situation where a newer player makes a substantial impact in wars, but not as the sole or primary combatant vs an SP/Great Power to be what we want. Then an alliance of 2-3 of them, or including one of the medium-ish powers would have a good chance at defeating any single player in the game - depending on strategies and setups (multi-planet or continental alliances suffer there, unfortunately). Are we at that point right now, do we think? (Eg - imagine Asteria + a newer player focusing on their air force + a newer player focusing on their tanks, all three in and around China, fighting against Mobius in a limited war with no space/orbital weapons used. Would we expect them to have a fighting chance at victory - in this case taking over India/SEA? I think I'd consider it possible, depending on strategies used.)
.·ï¨Ï¨Ï¨ï·.mat.gopack.·ï¨Ï¨Ï¨ï·.
Mattopia of the Mattibean Union in CYOC. You should join ;)

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"

Spreadsheets are fun!
User avatar
mat.gopack
 
Posts: 20736
Joined: 22 Nov 2009, 23:40
Location: The Carolinas
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (929)
All-game rating: (929)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: CYOC Main Thread- LOOK HERE FIRST

Postby Subotai45 » 12 Aug 2019, 18:43

A good example of this is Ali’s performance in the SEA War. Pretty new country, a little buffed by mass quantities of ancient gear from Venus. He probably couldn’t 1v1 Sybus, but he managed to hold his front and even advance, and was an important part of the war effort.
User avatar
Subotai45
 
Posts: 12453
Joined: 08 Oct 2012, 22:55
Location: Pitt
All-game rating: 4127
Timezone: GMT-9

PreviousNext

Return to Create Your Own Country

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests