Is there a historical "canon"?

[Mr. President]

Looks like some storyline role-playing is happening again. So I think it's worth deciding a position on RPs of times past.

As you may be aware, many of the old stories are not consistent with each other. (I'm guilty of writing stories that are badly not consistent with each other. ) The very early stories are not consistent with each other or with the old stories. And none of them are probably going to be consistent with new stories.

So, what I would recommend is that nothing should necessarily be taken as canon, except by bilateral or multilateral agreement. Otherwise, you'd probably have to set a couple of dozen threads' worth of required reading for new role-players.

[Flinx]

History is rewritten by the victor...

It is these apparent discrepancies which keep historians employed

[GeneralTacticus]

And physicists... apparently nations share certain characteristics of subatomic particles.

[DarkCloud]

Well, most of the older nations are defunct nowadays anyways

[joncha]

^bump^

Do you have anything to add to this thread, UR?

We've got a good core of new/newly interested people involved in a role-playing thread, but there's no reason we should alienate the people who have been here for the long haul.

So... anything in particular we should keep in mind? Any "must read" threads? Things to do or don't?

Thanks.

[Urban Ranger]

Maybe it's a good idea to start a thread to discuss what can and cannot happen in RP threads as to their effects to the, eh, virtual geopolitics of the Apolyton region. Like what to do with countries that ceases to exist.

I am pretty flexible as to how many regions a country can have on the map, Noosland has loads of people and can definitely use more land. However, before we arrive at a new concensus, we should stick with the old rules.

[ceroomaster]

re: Historical canon
If something is remembered then bring it up and refer to the thread, if not it's not that important- as long as everybody remembers not to get too close to Sheepsta island because of the radiation, we'll be fine...

re: Map
With the new map, I have been only colouring the first nation in- and just marking the names of nations in on other territories thay have greedily claimed.

My suggestions with regard to the map is:

1) one spot per nation, regardless of primary nation or puppet, as there are more than enough places (plus a lot of new ones)

2) nations can have other territories, but if somebody else wants them for a nation they have to give it up (as suggested by GT)
these should be marked on the map slightly differently (eg stripped instead of fully coloured or handled as the deceased nations as I have done on the map for now)

3) nations that cease to exist stay on the map until the spot is claimed, just in case they are revived. Although, like the current map the flag is removed the name is greyed and the political colouring returns to the 'free nation' colour.

If we can arrive at some sort of general consensus with the map rules, whether to change slightly or stick with the old rules then I can get updating...

[joncha]

good suggestions about the map, ceroo

I'm of the opinion we should "start fresh," especially after having looking through some of the old threads... (the sheep/archaic history springs to mind )

I also so think we should try to role-play things as "realistically" as possible. By which I mean, no God-modding and no unrealistic tech or weaponry--think Civ2 or 3, not SMAC or the end bits of CtP--and no orcs, wizards or space invaders. All of these things can be fun to roleplay, but not IMO in the context of Nation States.

[DarkCloud]

I also so think we should try to role-play things as "realistically" as possible. By which I mean, no God-modding and no unrealistic tech or weaponry--think Civ2 or 3, not SMAC or the end bits of CtP--and no orcs, wizards or space invaders. All of these things can be fun to roleplay, but not IMO in the context of Nation States.

True, the whole situation becomes sort of bizarre when reality gets thrown out the window!

[Rasputin]

totoaly agree with the role playing suggestions, i certianly wont suddenyl nuke my enemies, as in the real world no one would do that as it would amount to a mutually assured destruction ..

as to the map changes, i think the regression that has occured is bad , we hav eplenty of space to allow expansion of people located in small regions inot vacant regions around them .

if (and i doubt we will get that far) get more players then we can add regions to the mainland lots of space there.

i for one actually think each player should only have one nation in our region. makes for better rp with diplomacy and such.

i think the changes back to the start are negative and we were having great role play till the latest changes.

due to my nation being shrunk back to one tiny island, i cant role play involvment in wolrd affairs.

[Urban Ranger]

This reminds me of a prior revitalisation attempt. A group of players started new nations and hoped to level out the playing field, but that fizzled out due to a lack of interest.

nations can have other territories, but if somebody else wants them for a nation they have to give it up (as suggested by GT)

That's a good idea. I suggest that each nation can claim one additional territory for each 500 million people.

[joncha]

Lack of interest is one thing. Getting pissed on by bitter hold-overs is quite another.

There's a renewed interest again, so let's give it an honest shot and see how it works out.

[Rasputin]

extra regions should not necesarily be set at one per 500 million as regions are differing in size. Again cant we put some common sense into play. If you have a reasonably large region already then expansion onto a smaller neighbouring zone is probably ok, but try not to keep doubling your size if you already holds large tracts of land.

If a nation started on the islands in apolynesia then obviously population growth to the 1 bill or 2 bill mark should allow them to expand onto other islands etc....