how much interest is there in unusual games?

[Twan]

One thing has never been done : a dynamic modded game (= a game where a game master changes settings during play, technically possible but would need all players to dowload a mod each x turns, and would also be ultra exploitable by an abusive gm or ultra buggy with a gm doing errors). Anyway the possibilities in this area are fantastic and for the moment unexplored (ie : system where players customize their troops or create completely new units during play, scenarized game, stability system ala EU3 with penalties for nations breaking their treaties etc...).

Except that I think many kinds of original games have already been organized (modded nations, pretenders, etc... maps without indies, maps with many starting provinces, many kind of victory conditions)...

[Ironhawk]

I always like an unusual game but what each person considers "unusual" is highly variable from person to person. Post your idea and just see what people think. QM likes bizarre concepts perhaps more than all of us.

[Baalz]

Yeah, it's not a terribly high bar to find 4 or 5 guys willing to give most anything a try...

[lch]

Twan said:
One thing has never been done : a dynamic modded game (= a game where a game master changes settings during play, technically possible but would need all players to dowload a mod each x turns, and would also be ultra exploitable by an abusive gm or ultra buggy with a gm doing errors).

You know, I actually planned to do this at some time. A game which switches from EA to MA to LA every 20-30 turns or so (minus exotic LA nations like Ermor and R'lyeh). Didn't get the time to actually work on implementing this, though.

[jimkehn]

I've always thought it would be fun to do a "Grande Campaign", where only nations that had some incarnation in all 3 eras could join. A game from the early era would be played first, then MA, finally LA. The nation with the highest total "points" would be the winner. The same player would play his nation through all three eras. Not sure how the dedication to such a project would work, though. For example, what happens when the EA nation gets knocked out early and the EA game goes 6 more months? Will he still be interested 6 months later in continuing??? I am sure replacements could be found, but still......

But OTOH, maybe the game could be held to just 6 or so players.

Any feedback??

[Meglobob]

jimkehn said:
I've always thought it would be fun to do a "Grande Campaign", where only nations that had some incarnation in all 3 eras could join. A game from the early era would be played first, then MA, finally LA. For example, what happens when the EA nation gets knocked out early and the EA game goes 6 more months? Will he still be interested 6 months later in continuing??? But OTOH, maybe the game could be held to just 6 or so players.

Any feedback??

Play all 3 games at the same time, then just add up the points at the end.

[jimkehn]

I suppose you could do that. But by playing one era at a time it would give the "historical' flavor of sequential allies and opponents.

[Rathar]

I vote Lots.

[jimkehn]

Lots??

[Tharsonius]

jimkehn said:
I've always thought it would be fun to do a "Grande Campaign", where only nations that had some incarnation in all 3 eras could join. A game from the early era would be played first, then MA, finally LA. The nation with the highest total "points" would be the winner. The same player would play his nation through all three eras. Not sure how the dedication to such a project would work, though. For example, what happens when the EA nation gets knocked out early and the EA game goes 6 more months? Will he still be interested 6 months later in continuing??? I am sure replacements could be found, but still......

But OTOH, maybe the game could be held to just 6 or so players.

Any feedback??

I like the idea.
With max 6-7 nations and 24h-26h turns (the faster the better)