[War] Game

[pentaj2 at Scranton.edu]

Yeah, sure.:) It's been a long week, I felt like being picky.

John

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:35 pm
Subject: Re: [War] Game

> Then can't we just set it in 2013 then?
> 
> On 1/27/07, pentaj2 at scranton.edu <pentaj2 at scranton.edu> wrote:
> > I agree with the -theory- of your idea, but there's one small 
> problem.>
> > 2012 is an -election- year. The guy who wins the 2012 election gets
> > sworn in 20 January, 2013.
> >
> > The guy who wins 2008 gets sworn in 20 January, 2009.
> >
> > Automation: I agree, but part of the problem at the moment is that
> > when one person has issues, we're stuck.
> >
> > John
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael Downey <michael.michaeldowney at gmail.com>
> > Date: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:40 pm
> > Subject: Re: [War] Game
> >
> > > My suggestion is this: we move the game timeline five years 
> into the
> > > future, 2012. This is close enough that it would be almost 
> identical> > to our own world, yet we can change things a little 
> bit to make the
> > > game easier to control. Example, we can state that the Iraq 
> War was
> > > won but with a tentative and shaky democratic government put into
> > > power. Same for Afghanistan.
> > >
> > > The economic situation of most nations should be improved, taking
> > into
> > > account GDP growth over the five year period. I would say, on
> > average,
> > > we let the GDP of all nations increase about 10-15%. Unless we
> > > want to
> > > make a global economic downturn for some reason?
> > >
> > > This will also give players rather free reign to chose their
> > > governments and introduce characters. The US player, for example,
> > > could start at the beginning of a Presidential term in 2012 
rather
> > > than having to labor through the effort of killing off the 
sitting
> > > POTUS. Quite possibly the most dangerous job in the game, as 
> history> > has shown us ;)
> > >
> > > Another thing I suggest is that we be swifter in dealing with
> > > international conflicts. A problem that this game has is that
> > > conflicts drag on forever; no matter how many posts or how much
> > effort
> > > a player(s) might invest, conflicts just drag on and on and on 
and
> > > nothing gets concluded. Re Hatia, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq,
> > Sudan.....
> > > why bother posting on a subject when every WR just tells you 
> how much
> > > worse it is getting no matter what you do? Now of course this
> > probably
> > > more accurately reflects how things work IRL, but this is a 
> game and
> > > we can't really wait around for years for our story lines to
> > > concluded.
> > >
> > > I agree with John that automation of the WR would be nice, but 
I'm
> > > really afraid we're going to get stuck in a rut over this and 
> not do
> > > anything if we can't get it automated. Really, the nature of 
> the game
> > > is going to require a lot of narrative writing for the WR anyway,
> > > automation is not going to change that. A simple text template 
> with> > blanks that can be filled in would work just as well. A 
> biweekly WR
> > > could be possible if more than one person helps with it.
> > >
> > > These are just some ideas I had. Thoughts?
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > War mailing list
> > > War at esteroic.com
> > > http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_esteroic.com
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > War mailing list
> > War at esteroic.com
> > http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_esteroic.com
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> War mailing list
> War at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_esteroic.com
>