|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Mar 28, 2016 23:49:48 GMT
First off:
Yes, my TW (14) will only start many months from now, but I had an idea and I want to get opinions on it.
The idea is: Cloak and Dagger war.
The war will take place in the late 19th through mid 20th century. It will either cover Europe or the World (TBD) and will be a plain & ordinary war with the exception of a new concept: Cloak and Dagger Actions.
The first of these is approval ratings and protests:
Approval ratings will be determined by me (GM). I will PM each player his approval ratings and the reason they are where they are (low due to increased conscription, or high due to lack of nearby invaders. Only a player knows his approval ratings.
If Approval goes above or below a certain point, there will be a protest which everyone will know about. If protests continue for a certain number of rounds, the player is considered to have lost an election. A new player may take his seat. If the new player loses an election, his predecessor returns.
To protect against losing elections, there are two mechanisms: martial law and autocracy.
Martial law may be declared if there are troops of other countries on your soil. This makes you invulnerable to elections, but your approval ratings will suffer and you may lose power when it ends.
Autocracy consists of you ending elections
It requires 5 turns to dissolve parliament and form a secret police, but you become a dictator. Note that if you lose a province as a dictator, another province will rebel. Rebels will stay put in said province, and require soldiers to be put down. If the rebellion lasts for a round, another province rebels. If the rebellion lasts 3 rounds, you are ousted and another player (your opponent in past elections or a new player) will take power.
Change a foreign regime:
If a country is an Autocracy, but was Democratic and had multiple leaders, you may invade it under the mantra of bringing the ruler not currently in charge to his rightful position. This is only possible if the Dictator's citizens are protesting.
GM-controlled rebels:
Some territories (Canada, Australia, the Southern US, and Hungary) have separate approval ratings. If they reach protest levels, you as the leader have three choices:
A) Crush the rebellion
Requires troops, failure results in independence, success results in martial law over the province which you may abolish. Under provincial martial law, rebellions do not occur. Success causes home approval ratings to go up, failure causes them to decrease.
B)Release them
The province becomes a separate, neutral country. Your home approval ratings plummet
C)form a Dominion
The province is a new, independent country under you. No change in home approval.
Some lands (Bavaria, Poland, Scotland, Quebec, Persia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa) may rebel randomly. If you cannot defeat these rebels, they become neutral nations. If you do, status quo is restored. The same applies to a country that has been wiped out, except a wiped-out nation returns with its old ruler. One of these can rebel against multiple overlords if it is partitioned.
Is this feasible?
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 29, 2016 0:30:15 GMT
I would say... not really easy to play it without a mechanism to keep up approval levels (ie bread and circuses). Pretty much the last guy who topples under all of those prtoests and rebellions will be the default winner.
Now if that's the actual point of this TW, sure... it will be the last man standing type of TW, we can even add NPC invanders to provoke risks of losing providences or simply having invanders nearby makes your approval suffers even more after whatever you had already went through. Additional events that makes things more infuriating difficult to last long like economic crashes.
THAT would be a machoist's dream TW.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Mar 29, 2016 0:34:37 GMT
I would say... not really easy to play it without a mechanism to keep up approval levels (ie bread and circuses). Pretty much the last guy who topples under all of those prtoests and rebellions will be the default winner. Now if that's the actual point of this TW, sure... it will be the last man standing type of TW, we can even add NPC invanders to provoke risks of losing providences or simply having invanders nearby makes your approval suffers even more after whatever you had already went through. Additional events that makes things more infuriating difficult to last long like economic crashes. THAT would be a machoist's dream TW. Honestly, it wouldn't be last man toppled. A) When one goes down, a new player replaces him B) A healthy foreign policy going along with the events will keep you up. C) I suppose I would have to add events that help approval (e.g. American Pilot successfully crosses ocean in one flight, safely lands in Britain) This specific example would raise approval in both the US and Britain D) Thank you for expressing your opinion |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Mar 29, 2016 0:44:22 GMT
I LOVE this idea. Now, i have a question: Can the people who have lost an election launch a revolt of their own against the government, therefore sparking a civil war?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Mar 29, 2016 0:46:06 GMT
I LOVE this idea. Now, i have a question: Can the people who have lost an election launch a revolt of their own against the government, therefore sparking a civil war? Only if they're supported by another country |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Mar 29, 2016 1:12:52 GMT
I LOVE this idea. Now, i have a question: Can the people who have lost an election launch a revolt of their own against the government, therefore sparking a civil war? Only if they're supported by another country So if Player A loses an election to Player B in the country of Ecuador, Player A can try and gain the support of a neighboring country like Peru to support the civil war? |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Mar 29, 2016 1:27:43 GMT
Only if they're supported by another country So if Player A loses an election to Player B in the country of Ecuador, Player A can try and gain the support of a neighboring country like Peru to support the civil war? Yes. Even years later, he can be supported by said country |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Mar 29, 2016 1:58:47 GMT
Improvement of the approval rating:
You have a different approval rating in each province (People in East Germany will be more upset about a Russian Invasion than those in West Germany). If you lose an election, but have really high (support protest level) approval levels in one or more provinces, you will lead those provinces in a civil war.
In a foreign-supported rebellion, you'll need a slightly lower, but still over 50%, approval rating to take charge of a province and cause a civil war.
Note that you take over each Province individually in a civil war, even if you are more liked in the whole country.
|
|
|
|
Post by best75 on Mar 29, 2016 2:21:00 GMT
This sounds hard to keep track of the approval stuff but if you are willing to keep track of it than this is good to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 30, 2016 4:33:42 GMT
Honestly, it wouldn't be last man toppled. A) When one goes down, a new player replaces him B) A healthy foreign policy going along with the events will keep you up. C) I suppose I would have to add events that help approval (e.g. American Pilot successfully crosses ocean in one flight, safely lands in Britain) This specific example would raise approval in both the US and Britain D) Thank you for expressing your opinion Just wanted to understand this idea better by probing, so pardon the probing  I'm a natural skeptic and I notice potential issues and bring up questions to address them. It's the way I help the best as I can. Ok so... A) If a country is in pretty serious trouble and a player is forced out, would a new player even want to take his place? I know that the conditions would be better for the new leader but the factors will eventually turn against the new leader as well like a steamrolling Russia pushing down hard on the crumbling Ottoman Empire, taking away pieces. New leader comes in, approval resets, but Russia still plowing deep into Turkish terrain and provoke low approval levels. (True, a truce set by GM will hold it off temporarily but it still means the new leader is holding up a crippled empire and has a strong neighbor, that's the natural outcome). Just saying... there might be a reason why someone might hesitate to jump in place of someone's mess. Band-aids don't solve this. B and C) A healthy foreign policy? If speaking in equal terms between players etc... all factored out, so forth... I have played many strategy-genere games, I know for sure that a healthy foreign policy heavily depends on the starting position of the country (granted, the player is the ultimate factor, just other than that...) there has to be more to it than just a good rolling war to keep up approval levels and random events. Bread and circuses or whatever you wishes it, a deliberate action on the part of the player himself should be available to lift up approval levels. I don't mind faustian choices btw and a mix of a few non-fautian ones at a limited basis. It makes the game more challenging and demanding rather than "doomed if you do, doomed if you don't". D) You're welcome. I'm happy to share in-depth ponderances with someone who thinks things deeply like you. E) Just curious... do you also plan to include espionage missions since this is phrased Cloak and Dagger? Secret sabotages that only GM knows who had committed it sounds thrilling and dangerous. Adds a new meaning to 'backstab' in gaming when it's from an unknown souurce.  |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Mar 30, 2016 4:39:02 GMT
Honestly, it wouldn't be last man toppled. A) When one goes down, a new player replaces him B) A healthy foreign policy going along with the events will keep you up. C) I suppose I would have to add events that help approval (e.g. American Pilot successfully crosses ocean in one flight, safely lands in Britain) This specific example would raise approval in both the US and Britain D) Thank you for expressing your opinion Just wanted to understand this idea better by probing, so pardon the probing I'm a natural skeptic and I notice potential issues and bring up questions to address them. It's the way I help the best as I can. Ok so... A) If a country is in pretty serious trouble and a player is forced out, would a new player even want to take his place? I know that the conditions would be better for the new leader but the factors will eventually turn against the new leader as well like a steamrolling Russia pushing down hard on the crumbling Ottoman Empire, taking away pieces. New leader comes in, approval resets, but Russia still plowing deep into Turkish terrain and provoke low approval levels. (True, a truce set by GM will hold it off temporarily but it still means the new leader is holding up a crippled empire and has a strong neighbor, that's the natural outcome). Just saying... there might be a reason why someone might hesitate to jump in place of someone's mess. Band-aids don't solve this. B and C) A healthy foreign policy? If speaking in equal terms between players etc... all factored out, so forth... I have played many strategy-genere games, I know for sure that a healthy foreign policy heavily depends on the starting position of the country (granted, the player is the ultimate factor, just other than that...) there has to be more to it than just a good rolling war to keep up approval levels and random events. Bread and circuses or whatever you wishes it, a deliberate action on the part of the player himself should be available to lift up approval levels. I don't mind faustian choices btw and a mix of a few non-fautian ones at a limited basis. It makes the game more challenging and demanding rather than "doomed if you do, doomed if you don't". D) You're welcome. I'm happy to share in-depth ponderances with someone who thinks things deeply like you. E) Just curious... do you also plan to include espionage missions since this is phrased Cloak and Dagger? Secret sabotages that only GM knows who had committed it sounds thrilling and dangerous. Adds a new meaning to 'backstab' in gaming when it's from an unknown souurce. apart from everything that post is HUGE! O-O O-O |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Mar 30, 2016 4:43:38 GMT
Was twiddling my thumbs waiting for TW10 so I had time to think on this. Figured I'd add some stuff to this thread. Totally understandable about the crash, we are just cursed with some kind of a black magic that prevents TWs from starting on time  lol |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Mar 30, 2016 5:08:48 GMT
Honestly, it wouldn't be last man toppled. A) When one goes down, a new player replaces him B) A healthy foreign policy going along with the events will keep you up. C) I suppose I would have to add events that help approval (e.g. American Pilot successfully crosses ocean in one flight, safely lands in Britain) This specific example would raise approval in both the US and Britain D) Thank you for expressing your opinion Just wanted to understand this idea better by probing, so pardon the probing I'm a natural skeptic and I notice potential issues and bring up questions to address them. It's the way I help the best as I can. Ok so... A) If a country is in pretty serious trouble and a player is forced out, would a new player even want to take his place? I know that the conditions would be better for the new leader but the factors will eventually turn against the new leader as well like a steamrolling Russia pushing down hard on the crumbling Ottoman Empire, taking away pieces. New leader comes in, approval resets, but Russia still plowing deep into Turkish terrain and provoke low approval levels. (True, a truce set by GM will hold it off temporarily but it still means the new leader is holding up a crippled empire and has a strong neighbor, that's the natural outcome). Just saying... there might be a reason why someone might hesitate to jump in place of someone's mess. Band-aids don't solve this. B and C) A healthy foreign policy? If speaking in equal terms between players etc... all factored out, so forth... I have played many strategy-genere games, I know for sure that a healthy foreign policy heavily depends on the starting position of the country (granted, the player is the ultimate factor, just other than that...) there has to be more to it than just a good rolling war to keep up approval levels and random events. Bread and circuses or whatever you wishes it, a deliberate action on the part of the player himself should be available to lift up approval levels. I don't mind faustian choices btw and a mix of a few non-fautian ones at a limited basis. It makes the game more challenging and demanding rather than "doomed if you do, doomed if you don't". D) You're welcome. I'm happy to share in-depth ponderances with someone who thinks things deeply like you. E) Just curious... do you also plan to include espionage missions since this is phrased Cloak and Dagger? Secret sabotages that only GM knows who had committed it sounds thrilling and dangerous. Adds a new meaning to 'backstab' in gaming when it's from an unknown souurce. A) Approval doesn't "reset". It is calculated as 100%-approval rate of predecessor, so you get some boost to help stabilize B) A healthy foreign policy is harder to attain for some than others, but then again you can see such things on a map. C)I suppose I'll add a function for increasing approval, something like campaigning for president here (giving speeches and kissing babies type of stuff) E)I think I will add discreet backstabbing actions (spike the water of the army to reduce fighting ability, pour itching powder in the leader's suit to embarrass him and lower approval for him). These, along with abolishing or restoring democracy, would be denoted as "cloak and dagger move(s) in the turns |
|
I'm a natural skeptic and I notice potential issues and bring up questions to address them. It's the way I help the best as I can.
