Nigel_Secomb

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Status 2020-10-15 #4710
    Nigel_Secomb
    Participant

    3. Add the Character number to the Character List to allow using the number instead of the character name.

    Yay! Thanks Jon, that will help (hopefully) avoid order fails due to a misspelt character name in an order.

    Lord Holmzykell Matthiasarson

    in reply to: New Faction: The Misthophoroi #4676
    Nigel_Secomb
    Participant

      Addendum:


    if you want to ask any questions about or discuss the faction privately, please email us at: misthophoroi@iinet.net.au .

    in reply to: Kingdoms: Camden and Raondra ? #3973
    Nigel_Secomb
    Participant

    Thanks Jon for the additional basic info about the starting situation on the broken continent. I’ve found it very useful context when considering what goals and styles of play are likely to work for a given clan, and where roughly on the map would be a good choice for a given style of play.

    kind regards,

    Nigel S.

    in reply to: Kingdoms: Camden and Raondra ? #3709
    Nigel_Secomb
    Participant

    Hi Penn,
    Given that there are clans starting in those Kingdoms, it makes little sense that they’d be a complete mystery. If we were talking about an area outside the initial starting areas, sure, but not within the starting area.
    While those Kingdoms may not have good relations with the Imperials, there are a number of reasons why they may be biding their time or even trying to improve those relationships. There’s also the issue of how they get along with each other. Again, it would be fairly obvious from goings on at the borders as to whether the relationships were positive, neutral or negative.
    Please note that my questions concern fairly broad facts, not details which could be concealed from those living in the area. These issues wouldn’t take much effort to develop or document in the rulebook, and aren’t the kind of details that provide interesting roleplay opportunities.
    I am keen to hear from the GMs on these two Kingdoms.

    in reply to: Kingdoms: Camden and Raondra ? #3707
    Nigel_Secomb
    Participant

    From Penn on Discord:

    “From my talks with Jon, both Kingdoms in southern are UNKNOWN till the game starts and thus they are NPC only to begin with, and IN-GAME only interactions, and how they will relate to the IMPERIALS IS UNKNOWN, and there are No Imperial holdings in Midgard at all.

    Remember too the imperial are invaders that conquered the old kingdom that the Boda, Gotham, and Roder families were a part of.

    Expect a lot of forced fighting from the Gms #0s pushing the players to restore that former kingdom again and driving the imperial off Midgard.

    My guess the other two kingindom will also view the imperial as Invaders as well too.”

    in reply to: Skills – Mechanics #3558
    Nigel_Secomb
    Participant

    It might already be handled by the existing front page order:
    TRAIN [Character] [Skill] [Trainer]

    Rulebook description of the order may benefit from additional text about valid values for [Trainer], e.g. factional office name or [Character Name] (when being taught by another character in same position.

    Order may benefit from a syntax change to:
    TRAIN [Character] [Skill] [Trainer] [Position #]
    [Position #] would only be used if the teacher was a character in another position.

    If cross-training between positions was allowed, I’d think it better to drive from the teaching character (via CHARACTER TEACH) rather than the student (via TRAIN).

    Nigel S

    in reply to: Skills – Mechanics #3555
    Nigel_Secomb
    Participant

    Hi Daniel,

    My 2 cents: I’d hope it would be a front page order to teach a skill, e.g.
    CHARACTER [Name] TEACH [Position #] [Name] [Skill]
    and not require a SA. It’s fundamentally a mechanical action in the game, not a roleplay action.

      Notes:

    a) I’ve assumed teaching is 1:1; and
    b) I’ve assumed a character can teach a character in another position who is in the same sector; and
    c) to prevent the order being used to confirm the presence of a covert character who doesn’t want to be found, there would be a position policy flag added for accepting (true/false) training from other positions.

    Code would need to check that:
    a) Teacher’s [Skill level] > [target’s Skill level]; and
    b) Teacher’s [Skill level + TEA skill level] >= [target’s Skill level + 2.15]; and
    c) Teacher and target are in the same sector at the time of the order; and
    d) If Position # in order <> order set’s Position #, check if target Position #’s policy flag for accepting training from other positions = True.

    kind regards,

    Nigel S.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by Nigel_Secomb.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by Nigel_Secomb.
    in reply to: Roll Call – list of names to establish who is present. #2102
    Nigel_Secomb
    Participant

    Thanks Brian, your reply prompted me to look at an old laptop and old email archives, and I’ve found from late February 2005 (~3 years after Zan passed) via an email program I haven’t used in over a decade:
    – the email with PDF versions of the last returns for most (19) of the Midgard US positions I’d run towards the end of that game; and
    – a spirited discussion amongst a number of us from the US game with each other and Jon C. about “old chestnuts” with the Midgard game as it was at the time, and possible changes.

    Kinda funny how it’s wound back to starting from an even earlier version and then being redeveloped a bit from there.

    I’m wondering if Jon wants the city turns (where they are available) so he can reflect them in the restart, or whether the preference is to level the playing field by having all the cities in a much less developed state. As I recall, we managed to nuke a few cities off the map in Zan’s game…

    kind regards,
    Nigel

    in reply to: Roll Call – list of names to establish who is present. #2101
    Nigel_Secomb
    Participant

    Thanks Brian, your reply prompted me to look at an old laptop and old email archives, and I’ve found from late February 2005 (~4 years after Zan passed) via an email program I haven’t used in over a decade:
    – the email with PDF versions of the last returns for most (19) of the Midgard US positions I’d run towards the end of that game; and
    – a spirited discussion amongst a number of us from the US game with each other and Jon C. about “old chestnuts” with the Midgard game as it was at the time, and possible changes.

    Kinda funny how it’s wound back to starting from an even earlier version and then being redeveloped a bit from there.

    I’m wondering if Jon wants the city turns (where they are available) so he can reflect them in the restart, or whether the preference is to level the playing field by having all the cities in a much less developed state. As I recall, we managed to nuke a few cities off the map in Zan’s game…

    kind regards,
    Nigel

    in reply to: Download #2054
    Nigel_Secomb
    Participant

    Hi Jon, you’ll probably read this mid-move. When it’s convenient for you, could you please update my status to player so I can see your latest version of the rulebook. Thanks in anticipation.

    kind regards,
    Nigel

    in reply to: Roll Call – list of names to establish who is present. #2053
    Nigel_Secomb
    Participant

    Thought I’d have a look in to see what the relaunched game would look like, and the proposed pricing.

    I played in both the Australian and US versions and had positions at one time or another in Sea Kings (Aus: Pirates), Roder, Getham, Gift, Society of Arms, Nippon (US: Manchuria), Barbarians, Banner and Boda. Over time and between version I remember being a senior in 3 factions.

    At the time that Zan passed away I was down to only a few active positions and scheduled to leave the game a couple of turns later because of turn costs and the nature of the game as it was. I had enjoyed it for a number of years, but the game moved slowly, was very grindy, expensive when running a lot of positions and dealing with poor currency exchange rates, and the use of completely manual “special actions” to compensate for a lack of new game coding, new orders and new features, caused a lot of inconsistency, frustration and inefficiency.

    Like a few ex-players I ended up designing my own PBeM that used Midgard as a starting point for concepts, but then developed in directions that left the final design bearing few if any similarities to Midgard. I never coded it because the gaming landscape had changed a lot and it seemed likely to be a money-sink, and frankly there were other things I wanted to do with my time.

    From memory I cleaned out all my old Midgard stuff years ago when declutering the house and consolidating electronic backups.

    cheers,
    Nigel

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)