Brainstorm for a 1776 Forum Game?

[hygge0302]

I was thinking about a combination between a political and military game, where you have your own person and takes a leading role in the American revolution. On both sides of the conflict. But that is just my ideas. Are anyone even interested in this kind of game?

 

[Shock3r]

Sounds interesting. Would it be like war between the states?

 

[hygge0302]

Sounds interesting. Would it be like war between the states?

Sort of I think. I was thinking a combination of The Presidents, War between the states and the Vietnam game. So that you have the legislation body who decides where the army shall go and who will lead the army. You have the generals who lead the army, and a sort of real time simulation of the battlefield, instead of large updates.

 

[Stuckenschmidt]

Interesting as long as *drumroll* you keep it simple.

 

[hygge0302]

Interesting as long as *drumroll* you keep it simple.

You and I are both supporters of the school of simplicity ;-)

 

[Stuckenschmidt]

You and I are both supporters of the school of simplicity ;-)

Fine, if you need help with some ideas, I`ll try to do my very best. Maybe you can post some basic mechanics you are thinking about and what you want us to brainstorm.

EDIT:

I want to play the Brits and strangle this abomination in its cradle.

 

[hygge0302]

I was thinking we would have a yearly meeting, where the congress and representatives from the thirteen colonies would meet and and decide upon the strategy for the coming year. This "turn" would take a week in real time. After the strategy had been decided upon by the congress, who btw all are players, the generals would take over, I guess generals also can be congressmen, the generals will then try to carry out the plans made by congress and if two armies meet we go into a battlefield map where the two generals would issue orders to their officers, who also could be players.

A battle would be carried out over several turns. So for example:

Turn 1.

Hygge orders his men forward.

Stuckenschmidt orders his men to take defensive positions.

Turn two:

Hygge ordes his men to charge.

Stuckenschmidt orders his men to hold their ground and his royal hussars to flank the filthy peasants.

Turn three:

Hygge orders his men to retreat.

Stuckenschmidt orders his men to pursue.

This is only a example, the mini battle updates would be longer and have more exciting story telling where the players' characters would have a place.

 

[unmerged(236784)]

Sounds like it has potential.

How do you see the game dealing with players and GM's leaving the game?
Especially in the middle of a tactical battle?

 

[hygge0302]

Sounds like it has potential.

How do you see the game dealing with players and GM's leaving the game?
Especially in the middle of a tactical battle?

Since I'm the only GM it will not be a problem, if I go missing the game ends. Which I hopefully won't since I now have time in my calender.

If a player leaves a player below his rank will be upgraded to commander.

 

[Stuckenschmidt]

The more important question is, what the players are actually supposed to do.

 

[Deaghaidh]

The more important question is, what the players are actually supposed to do.

+1. However, I approve of this effort entirely.

 

[hygge0302]

The more important question is, what the players are actually supposed to do.

Good question ;-)

The Players will take command of the armies and order them around, they will fill the congress and decide what direction their country should take and should they win they can write a new constitution. They can also pass legislation and other stuff. What do you want players to do?

 

[DoomBunny]

I don't think it's going to work. Even simplified, the problem is that you're trying to do something that is far too broad in scope. Detailed tactical, strategic and political action isn't really feasible IMO.

 

[Stuckenschmidt]

Good question ;-)

The Players will take command of the armies and order them around, they will fill the congress and decide what direction their country should take and should they win they can write a new constitution. They can also pass legislation and other stuff. What do you want players to do?

Sounds fine, but how is "decide stuff" supposed to look like? Pointless rambling as in the Reichstag-game?

 

[hygge0302]

I don't know, how can it make an impact upon the game?

 

[etranger01]

I would very much enjoy such a game.

 

[Stuckenschmidt]

I don't know, how can it make an impact upon the game?

You came up with the whole idea, you have to think about it. Yes, thinking as in spend a month on it.

 

[etranger01]

Sounds fine, but how is "decide stuff" supposed to look like? Pointless rambling as in the Reichstag-game?

It's not "pointless". Some of us enjoy the political infighting a great deal. If you don't like it, feel free to vote with your feet and do something else.

 

[unmerged(236784)]

You came up with the whole idea, you have to think about it. Yes, thinking as in spend a month on it.

OK, as far as I can tell, 'hygge0302' was asking for player input. Perhaps he will that input to aid his design process.

For myself, I say drop the whole legislature thing and let the players concentrate on the military aspect.

The GM can handle the diplomacy, economics, and other whatnot.

If he is feeling generous, he can offer events for us to decide on.

Said events having two choices as to available responses. Majority vote decides.

 

[hygge0302]

OK, as far as I can tell, 'hygge0302' was asking for player input. Perhaps he will that input to aid his design process.

For myself, I say drop the whole legislature thing and let the players concentrate on the military aspect.

The GM can handle the diplomacy, economics, and other whatnot.

If he is feeling generous, he can offer events for us to decide on.

Said events having two choices as to available responses. Majority vote decides.

I was indeed asking for player input. Let's say we remove nearly all of the congress thing. The only thing the congress is to do is meet yearly and decide strategy?

So the recipe is:

Congress meets decides yearly strategy.

Generals tries to do win with this strategy.

Battles commence.

Repeat.

What about that?

Also do you think that both sides of the conflict should be player controlled?