Monday, January 25, 2021

Dynastic Vision

First, the pun aspect of the dynasty. In one respect, it’s a simulation of a peace conference, with the Player as referee. In another, each Emperor is running his own nomic dynasty, with the Player playing all of them simultaneously. At this point we seem to be leaning more into the former aspect than the latter, but they are both (so far) relevant interpretations of the theme.

Second, the intended time scale of the simulation is near-real time. Almost everything should be themed as negotiations, as there is simply not enough time to (for example) launch an invasion or earn income, merely to threaten an invasion or promise a payment.

Third, the “overlapping nomics” interpretation is the reason why Dynastic Distance is Inactive. I intend to try to actually play the sub-nomics seriously using dynastic actions, although possibly at thematic handicaps such that I’m unlikely to win, and with my own situation (hopefully) not unduly biasing my proposal-writing and veto decisions.

At the intersection of the two themes, bribing the Player is appropriate and expected (although subordinate to the Player’s dynasty-keeping duties).

Finally, I’m counting on y’all to come up with most of the “great many disagreements” mentioned in the Ascension Address.

P.S. I intend to veto any sort of attempt to subvert the dynastic machinery in “Treaties [Universal]”

Comments

Clucky: he/him

25-01-2021 20:29:27 UTC

If “Everyone is the emperor of their own nomic all running at once” is something we want to go for, do we want to consider making it so that if you create a new treaty, you become the “Author” of the treaty and Authors have veto power over changes to their treaties?

Bucky:

25-01-2021 20:54:52 UTC

That is implementable within the treaty content itself, and not all treaties need it.