Nobody here...

[Jefgte]

Since 40 days Kworld is absent...

Navalism is over... ?

Jef  :'(  :'(  :'(

[Kaiser Kirk]

Stuck off at a training, poked my nose in to look a bit ago and noted that it seemed pretty quite after Christmas.
Seems strange for you guys to get right up to the start gate (heh, watching olympic skiiing, hence the choice of analogies) and stall out.

[Darman]

Stuck off at a training, poked my nose in to look a bit ago and noted that it seemed pretty quite after Christmas.
Seems strange for you guys to get right up to the start gate (heh, watching olympic skiiing, hence the choice of analogies) and stall out.

I hope its not over.

[Darman]

So... I'm still up for trying to make this work.  But we need new blood

[Jefgte]

 ;)  ;)  ;)

Jef

[Darman]

and no that doesn't mean a ritual sacrifice!

[Kaiser Kirk]

Well I was looking forward to seeing what you guys did this time.
Personally, I'm booked up until July, and not sure I'd want to commit anyhow.

[Darman]

Well I was looking forward to seeing what you guys did this time.

I was looking forward to it too

[ctwaterman]

Damn I poke my nose in every few months just to see how things are going I thought it was going to work.

Charles

[Logi]

I think we ought to be more explicit, rather than who wants to play, the question should be who wants to play and what do you want to play?

It became clear to me, over the last attempt at the very least, that there was a huge gap between what I wanted to play and what others were interested in playing. Some "features" that showed up were so radically different than what I expected that very quickly the restart attempt became "not what I signed up for".

That said, I'm not entirely convinced about the practice of making relatively new members to sim a moderator and head of the restart attempts. In one way or another many of them have shown radicalism which would have been known had they been around longer and perhaps mellowed out by interactions with the gallery. On the counter side it seems many of the old members don't have the interest/time to moderate.

There is also something to be said for the fact that the last few restart attempts have been lead by rather stubborn personalities, although this may be the pot calling the kettle black. IMO if we are to succeed in a restart, we'll probably need some more cool-headed and flexibility leaders to preside over the attempt. We have been lacking in that characteristic.

[Darman]

The first version I played was Navalism 3.  I liked that particular version, and I've always felt that returning to that would be a good start.  Granted, I only played that first version for a few months before it ended (Rift War if I remember right). 

I agree that someone who's been around a while ought to be put in charge of any restart. 

[Jefgte]

Returning to Navalism 3 is the better alternative, it was the best version.

Jef

[Logi]

I agree that the N3 system is decent however there were always a few things lacking: viability of economic growth, ease of military simulation, amongst others. For the sake of actually having a functional restart, I'll restrict my focus to the mentioned two.

The economic aspect has been discussed at every restart attempt so I believe we all know what is desired. Something simple like Snip's sliding scale is probably the best band-aid solution we have around.

The military system is frankly a burden on both the moderators and players. In addition due to the ad-hoc method it was simulated in, it is quite unsatisfying for a player engaged in war. It would be possible to define the combat system in more depth in order to avoid this problem and to streamline the wargaming, however that seems to be quite a lot of work. In addition, it would be necessary to bring such a change to lengthy public debate. Such an effort would probably stall and end the restart attempt.

I suggest we scrap the combat system and move towards the Wesworld style of scripted wars with the participants deciding how they will simulate the war between them. The proviso would be that such wars are such to public criticism and moderator influence (if it becomes too absurd) and that other players can enter the war at any moment they please. However, the entering player would have to accept the existing method of simulation chosen by the primary participants.

Another point is that we should have a consensus on how we deal with neighbors who fall behind in sim reports and then suddenly release 8 year's worth of sim reports (*cough* Middle Kingdom *cough*). Usually these late sim reports are extreme threats to the national security of their neighbors. Do we agree to allow their neighbors to ret-con?


One thing we will need to do is set an explicit deadline for getting in the first sim reports, i.e. signaling to everyone involved that the sim has started so there is no ambiguity around. At several points in the restart attempts the attempt stalled simply because people didn't know if the discussion had ended and things decided, etc. Snip's restart attempt was more clear in this regard but he too did not explicitly state when the preliminary spending and sim reports would be due. At the same time, we'll have to explicitly state a starting pace of sim reports, i.e. 1 every month etc. so there is a general idea of the pace of the sim (no loitering around for 3 months after the first sim years come out).

[Darman]

I think that if we want to try a new restart we should agree that the N3 system is the system we want to run with.  Once we've refamiliarized ourselves with that system then a few select changes can be discussed.  I agree that no system is perfect, and I remember that playing as Egypt it seemed like it would be very difficult for me to expand my economy through investment in a worthwhile amount of time.  However, I do firmly believe that if we agree to use N3's system as the foundation of a restart, then any questions that may arise should be referred back to the N3 rules, and we don't have to discuss and agree upon new rules and protocols as we go. 

[Logi]

I'm having trouble understanding your stance on the issue in the context of a reply to my post. Is your position that we should push through the N3 system completely untouched?

If the stance is instead that no major rework of the rules should be done, I'm in agreement with that as well. Hence what I did suggest was the simple sliding cost that N4 was supposed to have and that we all agreed upon. The other suggestion was the removal of a system, certainly not a complex task. The basis for this removal is the experience from multiple wars in N3 in which the system is the source of stagnation and sim failure.

These points have all been discussed and agreed upon in the past, hence I am simply suggesting that these two features along with the original N3 system be used word-for-word in the restart. These are things from the N4 attempt which represents the most complete edition of an updated N3 system.