No new PBEM's recently, are there?

Valuk · November 23, 2002, 08:40

Is there no one left who wants to play?
Come on!

yop73 · November 23, 2002, 08:43

I want to play, just pick a scenario, start a thread which says: " PBEM, please join" and the see who joins.
But you need to descide on a scenario first.

greeny · November 23, 2002, 16:40

I'm up for a PBEM: Age of War perhaps?

St Leo · November 23, 2002, 17:27

I expect at least four new PBEMs after the results of the Fourth Scenario Design Contest are announced (sometime in January?).

Choke · November 23, 2002, 18:25

I want to play Age of War...I made a version with no RRs which needs playtesting. Of course this would require Exile's approval so everyone bug him

. I think RRs make the game unrealistic so I made this version which is (I think) an improvement on an already great scenario.

Darius871 · November 23, 2002, 18:37

Why don't you make an "ATTN Exile" thread, and debate about it? Not like I'm going to actually PM him about it

The ANZAC · November 23, 2002, 19:08

Choke: instead of RRs did you replace with "suburbs" or something of the sort?

Case · November 23, 2002, 19:17

Hey ANZAC, what do you want to seceed from?

The ANZAC · November 23, 2002, 19:19

Well, it's John C. Calhoun as my avatar, so the US

I have my own blog spot too: http://theanzac.blogspot.com

Hopefully this is just a phase

Choke · November 23, 2002, 19:41

Anzac, on some tiles there is industry, it looks the same as the roads but it simulates the superior industrial might of the more advanced powers, Germany and Britain have lots, France less, Italy less, Spain has I think 1 tile with it and the rest have none. Also I tried to make sure it isn't useful to transport troops, it's just there for production and can be pillaged.

I took away a lot of roads from the poorer countries to simulate their poorness and to make it harder for them to move, they need to spend time making roads before they can move troops easily. Also I increased the road movement to 8 so that troops can be moved quickly, just not infinitely and also so that you CAN move a few spaces and attack but like real life if troops march for weeks then attack they won't be at the height of readyness or enthuseasm.

The ANZAC · November 23, 2002, 20:42

but are there RRs around cities to simulate suburbs? I'm guessing not, but you never know...

Choke · November 23, 2002, 20:43

oh, well yeah you could say that, they are around the rich country's cities.

0hwell · November 23, 2002, 21:39

I think that makes the weaker countries too tedious to play.

Choke · November 23, 2002, 21:45

No, they can do stuff, it's not that they have NO roads, just less of them, like they aren't on every tile and they sort of twist around so it takes longer to get places, there's also rivers which are important especially in Russia. Only Turkey would be tedious, the other countries are similar to usual.

klesh · November 23, 2002, 23:58

Quote:

Originally posted by The ANZAC
Hopefully this is just a phase

Oh my word. Indeed.

Anzac----------->

Valuk · November 24, 2002, 06:34

I'm for Age of War, and since I started this thread, I pick Russia

I am a bit concerned about my civplaying abilities, but, hey- who has ever sucseeded in conquering Russia anyhow

)

yop73 · November 24, 2002, 15:07

I'll take Italy.

Darius871 · November 24, 2002, 15:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Valuk
but hey- who has ever sucseeded in conquering Russia anyhow

)

Academia.

And I think Jmarks will soon too...

Choke · November 24, 2002, 16:04

I'll take Britain.

JamesJKirk · November 24, 2002, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by The ANZAC
Well, it's John C. Calhoun as my avatar, so the US

I have my own blog spot too: http://theanzac.blogspot.com

Hopefully this is just a phase

I once had a political theory professor who was fascinated by Calhoun, which is kind of surprising, since the guy seemed reasonably left-wing (I know, what a shocker for a prof).

Libertarianism is so interesting, just because of all the ideologies it can hold, and how it in no way can fit on the standard political spectrum. I consider myself sort of moderate-left libertarian, but I'm not a member of the party because it seems to be run by conspiracy theorist gun-nuts. (No offense to conspiracy theorist gun-nuts, I just don't feel like voting for them).

Back sort of OT: I was actually hoping for a Crises of NWO game, but I joined one at CFC and don't have time for another.

Choke · November 24, 2002, 17:45

Libertarianism: The most useless ideas of the right and left with no good policies from either combined to make one worthless steaming pile of shite.

Case · November 24, 2002, 18:20

Heh.
No insult ANZAC, but Libertarianism scares me. IMO it's a classic case of taking some good ideas too far as a result of a utopian view of the world.

Hell, I'm both a leftie and an economist, so I'm rather familiar with the conflict between 'good ideas' and harsh realities.

JamesJKirk · November 24, 2002, 18:47

I actually agree w/ you guys on most of that, well not really w/ Choke, but the smaller, less intrusive govt parts, and the individual freedom parts appeal to me, but like I said, other parts turn me off. In my congressional district this year, there was just a Democrat and a Libertarian running, so I thought that was kind of cool, but I looked at the voter pamphlet and her platform was to abolish the IRS and withdraw the US from the UN...and to think that she didn't win

Galvatron · November 24, 2002, 19:19

Oh I wanted to start a new PBEM but my attempt was hammered away by almost the whole community

Darius871 · November 24, 2002, 19:23

Well you can at least be proud you got that much attention.

Want a civ?

The ANZAC · November 24, 2002, 22:27

I guess the reaction to libertarianism wasn't as I had hoped

I'm not that psychotic. I consider myself a conservative Libertarian, so you can't say I'm not trying to be realistic

Darius871 · November 24, 2002, 22:54

I think the problem is more with Calhoun than libertarianism. For a lot of people (not me) John C. Calhoun = slavery, even though to libertarians he means something totally different.

Choke · November 24, 2002, 23:39

I've never heard of Calhoun, I just know that less involved governments are less effective. Libertarianism lacks moral fibre as well as economic sense.

Darius871 · November 24, 2002, 23:44

Quote:

I've never heard of Calhoun, I just know that less involved governments are less effective.

So... the economy of the U.S. is generally less effective than that of Sweden? Or Cuba for that matter?

JamesJKirk · November 24, 2002, 23:51

I think Libertarian tendencies are healthy, if prominent enough, as they've usually been in the US, is that they can prevent the government from being too intrusive and expansive, then downside is that they can also prevent government from working effectively