[Forum Game] World in Revolution 1861, Sign-up Thread

[BarticaBoat]

I'd like to play the Netherlands!

[Perth]

Ok, as promised, here go some suggestions:

The data right now has some flaws in being too informative in the wrong places, and too little in where should be more.
It is not important to know the exact population, what is important is to know the approximate population in each region. To know if there are ~8 millions in England, ~15 millions in India and so on (I am giving random values in here). The population vary with the years and the censuses, so we need to know approximate values that reflect the importance of each region. The exact values are unimportant, but what they speak of is.

In the same way, how much the country makes, how stable it is, what's its industry level (though in the other game this number speaks about number of large industries), the level of infrastructure and the amount of soldiers follow the same logic. Perhaps something like this would be more interesting (using the largest Empire, in smaller nations it would be much simpler):

These are the concrete important values, I'd say, which players will want to manipulate. The income, population, army and navy are concrete variables for the players to measure their relative strengths, while the stability, number of industries (or industry level if you prefer) and infrastructure are abstract and more RP-oriented variables.

This is some insightful advice, and I actually really like what you have to say and you make some good points. I like your proposal, though I worry it could become to "nit picky" in some ways. Do I need to list separate regions for a nation like China or Russia? I think listing the distribution of troops and navies across the globe is perhaps the most important, and the income values of colonial possessions as well. I will think these over a bit and probably end up implementing them in some ways.

A "Trade Balance" would be interesting only if you introduce a system of resources (cotton, cattle, wheat, canned food, etc.), in the same way Paradox's Victoria did (and can even get the values from there), but it will complicate things a lot, giving you loads of work. It will bring an interesting economic warfare into play, but it will mean at least mapping the regions with their local products, as to then determine major effects, like strategical blockades would cause different kinds of economic crisis due to shortage of important raw materials, and economic-motivated conflicts would start. Up to you.

I thought of this too. However, if I'm going to go through that much trouble, we might as well just fire up a multi-player game of Vic II 

I'd like to play the Netherlands!

Great!

[JPierreD]

This is some insightful advice, and I actually really like what you have to say and you make some good points. I like your proposal, though I worry it could become to "nit picky" in some ways. Do I need to list separate regions for a nation like China or Russia? I think listing the distribution of troops and navies across the globe is perhaps the most important, and the income values of colonial possessions as well. I will think these over a bit and probably end up implementing them in some ways.

Only the disputed areas. Russia could be separated in Finland, Poland, Central Russia (everything to the west of the Urals minus Finland and Poland) and Eastern Russia (the regions to the east of the Urals). China could be divided in North-Manchuria, West-Tibet and South-East (the rebellious regions). Should extra events call for further division you can add the partitions of the Baltic, the Caucasus, Taiwan/Formosa or whatever else you want. Start with a few partitions and make more if you see the need.

If you need help with anything know that I am available. Specially for South America, but also with anything else.

I thought of this too. However, if I'm going to go through that much trouble, we might as well just fire up a multi-player game of Vic II 

Indeed. Keep the economy in an abstract way flavored by GM-induced events to invite the players to act and react.

[vonGenf]

Mmmmmm...... I would much prefer you play USA or CSA. I think it would prove a lot more fun for both you and everyone else. 

That isn't to say you can't incorporate American Indians into your RP and the storyline of your nation heavily. Hell, turn Lincoln into an Indian-Sympathizer and create sovereign Indian nations out of the American South and West if you defeat the Confederates, etc.

Yes, I'll play the USA. I really wish someone will play the CSA though.

[Perth]

Yes, I'll play the USA. I really wish someone will play the CSA though.

Great!

And me too!

If no one ends up playing them, I will be sure to provide you lots of GM interaction for the war. I live in the Southern United States and so am quite familiar with the area and the American Civil War and will be able to ensure fun is had in that conflict.

Regardless, I hope someone picks them up!

[Perth]

If you need help with anything know that I am available. Specially for South America, but also with anything else.

Any research for the initial starting stats/numbers for any country would be very helpful, even if you only feel like doing a nation or two. Doing Brazil or Argentina would be great for starters.

I've got a pretty sweet Excel set going now based on the regional division set up where I can simply plug numbers in so that I have easy access to all of the important numbers regionally, but also instantly updated numbers for the empire as a whole. So, for instance, as troops numbers flux across the globe of the United Kingdom, I still have easy access to their total numbers and such.

Now that I have that established, the only real work remaining is determining the actual numbers for each nation. Plugging everything is the easy part.

[Lefanis]

Till what year will we be playing? And how many days in between turns?

[Iltaran]

I'll take Prussia.

Attempting to live up to one of the greatest political minds in history will be interesting. 

[Perth]

Till what year will we be playing? And how many days in between turns?

Until what year? I am unsure, we'll just see how things go before I get ahead of myself. And I am thinking perhaps one week per turn?

I'll take Prussia.

Awesome!

[Dante Silverfire]

I support one week per turn.

As far as time of the game, couldn't we just play until people just don't want to anymore, or when you no longer have time to GM it? (or don't want to anymore?)

[Perth]

I support one week per turn.

As far as time of the game, couldn't we just play until people just don't want to anymore, or when you no longer have time to GM it? (or don't want to anymore?)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Hell, this may end up sucking and we all lose interest after three weeks.

[Adriddae]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Hell, this may end up sucking and we all lose interest after three weeks.

Or it may be so awesome that you start writing programs to automate tasks for you.

[Dante Silverfire]

Or it may be so awesome that you start writing programs to automate tasks for you.

Or the game gets so good it has to be published.

[Frymonmon]

You need a Confederate States of America?

Well. I'd like to take a shot at playing my own game, sign me up.

-Frymonmon

[Indirik]

ut oh... we've got a ringer...