Forum Games

I am thinking for the future, if we can apply these style of forum games:

Forum Game: Cold War [play as either US or USSR, try to defeat the enemy or subdue 90% of the planet]
Forum Game: The Reich [play as Nazi Germany and try to conquer Europe, USSR and US]
Forum Game: Generals [play as Alexander and his generals and try to conquer Persia, Egypt and India]
Forum Game: Conquistadores [colonize Latin America, defeat natives]


But definitely less regulations than in FG: Rome, easier opponents and more bonuses, we should create our rules & modify old ones to make it easier and more fun because we are rookies in this game. And also we can play this for Christmas, New Year or some event like that, no need to spend all ideas now.

Tell me what you think folks.





P.S.
Wanted to added Forum Game: ISIS, like trying to capture as much Middle East as posibble, but figured out that's bad idea. Will wait 50 years until they are percieved as good guys, maybe then

Forum Game: Modern Balkan Wars

I play forum games more than i play atwar games...

I think they're all great ideas if there are actual games you can base them off of (something like RoR, with already written out rules on how to play)

Also i think a sub-forum for forum games would be nice.

Escrito por Valetorious, 18.08.2016 at 19:16

I think they're all great ideas if there are actual games you can base them off of (something like RoR, with already written out rules on how to play)

Also i think a sub-forum for forum games would be nice.

Agreed

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=27446

Escrito por Ghostface, 18.08.2016 at 19:02

Forum Game: Modern Balkan Wars

Support. People are already trained at that

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 18.08.2016 at 18:54

-

A little bit war-ready aren't we?
why don't we settle down with something more simple such a simple elections game? i would love seeing Stalin run for president of the USA

We can't make a forum war game, if we made a forum game it'd have to be political. But Cold War could work. Two more ideas: Protestant Reformation HRE states, Medieval Feudal France (could be another medieval state but France is known for being a Feudal clusterfuck in the medieval ages.)

Escrito por Tundy, 18.08.2016 at 21:09

A little bit war-ready aren't we?
why don't we settle down with something more simple such a simple elections game? i would love seeing Stalin run for president of the USA

FG: Cold War is more about politics, but FG: The Reich is about military.

Election game sounds fine, Stalin already elected multiple time Consul, should have no problem running for the White House.

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 19.08.2016 at 04:47

We can't make a forum war game, if we made a forum game it'd have to be political. But Cold War could work. Two more ideas: Protestant Reformation HRE states, Medieval Feudal France (could be another medieval state but France is known for being a Feudal clusterfuck in the medieval ages.)

How we can't make a forum war game? We are already playing Rome and fight 4 enemies.

Game proposals i made above should be copy of Rome we are currently playing, but instead Roman Senate we would have 'US Congress', or if we playing with USSR then 'Central Committee', or 'Reichstag' if we are Nazi Germany and fighting Europe.

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 19.08.2016 at 06:06

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 19.08.2016 at 04:47

We can't make a forum war game, if we made a forum game it'd have to be political. But Cold War could work. Two more ideas: Protestant Reformation HRE states, Medieval Feudal France (could be another medieval state but France is known for being a Feudal clusterfuck in the medieval ages.)

How we can't make a forum war game? We are already playing Rome and fight 4 enemies.

Game proposals i made above should be copy of Rome we are currently playing, but instead Roman Senate we would have 'US Congress', or if we playing with USSR then 'Central Committee', or 'Reichstag' if we are Nazi Germany and fighting Europe.

The war we're doing in the Roman game is basicly competing about who will be the commander. The members of the US congress, the Central Comittee and the Reichstag didn't command the troops themselves and infact besides Hitler politicians had no say in military matters. WW2 just doesn't fit with the "political" idea.

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 19.08.2016 at 07:20

The war we're doing in the Roman game is basicly competing about who will be the commander. The members of the US congress, the Central Comittee and the Reichstag didn't command the troops themselves and infact besides Hitler politicians had no say in military matters. WW2 just doesn't fit with the "political" idea.

That's why i opened this topic, to discuss with you:

You say thee parliament didn't appoint military leaders and front commanders, true, ok, then what about General Staff? General Staff act as supreme command and control organization of the country in case of war. They appoint generals, commanders, control police, militia, volunteers, civil defence, resources etc.

Nazi Germany General Staff (i think AOK) is thus playable, but if you want Cold War, then instead military generals, we would be politicians who do diplomatic visits in order to create an ally, enforce concessions and that sort of stuff.

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 19.08.2016 at 12:53

That's why i opened this topic, to discuss with you:

You say thee parliament didn't appoint military leaders and front commanders, true, ok, then what about General Staff? General Staff act as supreme command and control organization of the country in case of war. They appoint generals, commanders, control police, militia, volunteers, civil defence, resources etc.

Nazi Germany General Staff (i think AOK) is thus playable, but if you want Cold War, then instead military generals, we would be politicians who do diplomatic visits in order to create an ally, enforce concessions and that sort of stuff.

It did appoint commanders and generals however there wasn't really a power struggle between it's members about who will be leader. Cold War could work but players wouldn't be politicians in the same country but rather leaders of various states aligning themselves to one faction or the other and assasinations would instead be thing like backed coups and such.

Forum game: Whoever gets the most up votes gets swatted

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 19.08.2016 at 13:15

It did appoint commanders and generals however there wasn't really a power struggle between it's members about who will be leader. Cold War could work but players wouldn't be politicians in the same country but rather leaders of various states aligning themselves to one faction or the other and assasinations would instead be thing like backed coups and such.

It can be power struggle, like we have now in Roman game, players can create factions/parties/groups.

I don't know about being leaders of various states in the Cold War, because how would that work, like team game rp?

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 19.08.2016 at 16:35

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 19.08.2016 at 13:15

It did appoint commanders and generals however there wasn't really a power struggle between it's members about who will be leader. Cold War could work but players wouldn't be politicians in the same country but rather leaders of various states aligning themselves to one faction or the other and assasinations would instead be thing like backed coups and such.

It can be power struggle, like we have now in Roman game, players can create factions/parties/groups.

I don't know about being leaders of various states in the Cold War, because how would that work, like team game rp?

It can't because that's incredibly unrealistic, first of all the General Staff didn't have political ambitions to be backed by the military, there were no "factions" in it and commanders were appointed based on their skill in order to win the war. As for the Cold War one, it'd be like the Senate one except instead of factions we have blocs and players align themselves with the different blocs in order in return for different merits and instead of assasinations and persecutions we have coups and invasions.

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 19.08.2016 at 16:41

It can't because that's incredibly unrealistic, first of all the General Staff didn't have political ambitions to be backed by the military, there were no "factions" in it and commanders were appointed based on their skill in order to win the war. As for the Cold War one, it'd be like the Senate one except instead of factions we have blocs and players align themselves with the different blocs in order in return for different merits and instead of assasinations and persecutions we have coups and invasions.

General Staff is composed of military generals who are already commanders, and they put other generals 'in command' of their armies to lead in war.

General Staff is composed of General of the Air Force, General of the Army, Admiral of the Navy, General of the Space Forces, General of the Marines, General of the Airborne Troops, General of the Strategic Force (Rocket Troops). Then they discuss, make plans, draw on maps and appoint generals to lead command of the armies. In some countries, President or Prime MInister (Premier/Chancellor) is also part of the General Staff, but only gets 1 vote, some sort of civil representation. General Staff vote one general among them to be Chief of the General Staff, to act like Supreme Commander, but that's more symbolic, for public relations, moral and such. General Staff have 1 member = 1 vote [after discussion on plan/tactic/strategy] usually to give green light or discard the plan and create new one.

So i think it can work, just need little tweaking in game rules which we can adapt through first play [like we fix map balance on atwar after first play]

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 19.08.2016 at 16:53

General Staff is composed of military generals who are already commanders, and they put other generals 'in command' of their armies to lead in war.

General Staff is composed of General of the Air Force, General of the Army, Admiral of the Navy, General of the Space Forces, General of the Marines, General of the Airborne Troops, General of the Strategic Force (Rocket Troops). Then they discuss, make plans, draw on maps and appoint generals to lead command of the armies. In some countries, President or Prime MInister (Premier/Chancellor) is also part of the General Staff, but only gets 1 vote, some sort of civil representation. General Staff vote one general among them to be Chief of the General Staff, to act like Supreme Commander, but that's more symbolic, for public relations, moral and such. General Staff have 1 member = 1 vote [after discussion on plan/tactic/strategy] usually to give green light or discard the plan and create new one.

So i think it can work, just need little tweaking in game rules which we can adapt through first play [like we fix map balance on atwar after first play]

Except that's not the point of the Rome Senate game: That game is not about assigning the right commander to lead the troops miost effectively in order to win the war, it's about political power struggle. Yes we can vote as the General Staff but we're not actually competing against eachother.

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 19.08.2016 at 17:30

Except that's not the point of the Rome Senate game: That game is not about assigning the right commander to lead the troops miost effectively in order to win the war, it's about political power struggle. Yes we can vote as the General Staff but we're not actually competing against eachother.

That's why as General Staff in the war, we will have an enemy to fight, dices and rolls decide the outcome. If we lose the war, we lose the game. I just thought about working together, not always against each other.

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 19.08.2016 at 17:45

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 19.08.2016 at 17:30

Except that's not the point of the Rome Senate game: That game is not about assigning the right commander to lead the troops miost effectively in order to win the war, it's about political power struggle. Yes we can vote as the General Staff but we're not actually competing against eachother.

That's why as General Staff in the war, we will have an enemy to fight, dices and rolls decide the outcome. If we lose the war, we lose the game. I just thought about working together, not always against each other.

I guess that could work but it's a whole different concept from the Roman game.

Escrito por Tundy, 18.08.2016 at 21:09

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 18.08.2016 at 18:54

-

A little bit war-ready aren't we?
why don't we settle down with something more simple such a simple elections game? i would love seeing Stalin run for president of the USA

Just came to mind but perhaps in the future there could be a forum game set in an autocratic country (can be fictional or real). It could be like an oligopoly of sorts with every person assigned to a faction (family of dictator [if there is one]), army, opposition, business, intelligence, etc. Something kinda like the back door dealings in say the politburo of China and Vietnam

Escrito por Pheonixking929, 19.08.2016 at 17:58

Escrito por Tundy, 18.08.2016 at 21:09

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 18.08.2016 at 18:54

-

A little bit war-ready aren't we?
why don't we settle down with something more simple such a simple elections game? i would love seeing Stalin run for president of the USA

Just came to mind but perhaps in the future there could be a forum game set in an autocratic country (can be fictional or real). It could be like an oligopoly of sorts with every person assigned to a faction (family of dictator [if there is one]), army, opposition, business, intelligence, etc. Something kinda like the back door dealings in say the politburo of China and Vietnam

we have Rome ;^)

Escrito por Tundy, 19.08.2016 at 18:13

Escrito por Pheonixking929, 19.08.2016 at 17:58

Escrito por Tundy, 18.08.2016 at 21:09

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 18.08.2016 at 18:54

-

A little bit war-ready aren't we?
why don't we settle down with something more simple such a simple elections game? i would love seeing Stalin run for president of the USA

Just came to mind but perhaps in the future there could be a forum game set in an autocratic country (can be fictional or real). It could be like an oligopoly of sorts with every person assigned to a faction (family of dictator [if there is one]), army, opposition, business, intelligence, etc. Something kinda like the back door dealings in say the politburo of China and Vietnam

we have Rome ;^)

Actually.... that does make since

New idea: we are Israel and defend against Arab invasion. Bonus card America fund Israel with money and technology, Bad Omen Soviet Union fund Arabs with oil and technology.

Escrito por Tundy, 18.08.2016 at 21:09

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 18.08.2016 at 18:54

-

A little bit war-ready aren't we?
why don't we settle down with something more simple such a simple elections game? i would love seeing Stalin run for president of the USA

When elections are over, maybe we should do a Congress of Vienna political one with people on different countries competing for control of post-napoleonic france. Would be interesting to see all the back door deals goin on between teams only for Napoleon to (maybe) return and screw everything up as disenchanted countries or factions flock to join him D=