15 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Which has very little to do with Fallout, and very much to do with Afghanistan.

 

This Project has a special significance for me, being developed during and based on my experiences and exposure to Afghanistan. It was a sort of observation and in-progress catharsis to help me both understand the elements of legitimacy in the groups opposing us and in ourselves, without ignoring the flaws in either.

 

It also, in my opinion, would make a kickass game world.

 

 

As a Project, Insurgency Project selfishly belongs to me. I reserve the right to pull this down in the future and present it as something more than a whimsy, if I were to ever go into video games. Otherwise, please ask me first (in which case I'll settle for buy-in).

 

 

 

Insurgency Project developed gradually over many iterations and posts with a friend via PM. These are posted below in an unformatted order, so it can be seen how it developed and evolved.

 

===

 

Fallout: Afghanistan

This just came while looking over stories about the amount of infighting within the Afghan Insurgency, and considering the historic isolation and diversity of Afghan villages. Common cause one day, enemies the next, villages that have been neighbors but never joined for hundreds of years, even as they are unified (or not) against a foreign invader. A resistance force actually composed of hundreds of groups of various stripes, ideologues and foreign zealots and local pragmatists and honor-bound revenge seekers and financially-strapped impoverished farmers and criminal interprises, all unified under a name and common cause but little else.

It seems to me that an Afghanistan setting would make an excellent Fallout-style open-world setting, even in the Fallout Universe. A contest between a divided and fractured wasteland, one always at war with itself and never unified since the Great War, and new imperial/expansionist/occupational power that is seeking to enforce its view of civilization on an area that really doesn't want it. Plus, AK-47s and RPG. Can't forget the firepower.

I'm not the firmest believer in geographic determinism, but I think it has something for it: regions with strong lines of transportation and easy movement are quick to unify by politics or sword, while rugged/mountainous terrain is often the last to be brought in.


In some respects you could see a bit of Skyrim in this Empire vs. Insurgency context, but the big difference that makes Afghanistan, well, Afghanistan, would be a lack of unity on the part of the Insurgency. Rival tribes, rival villages and towns, rival groups that themselves have fought and always fought to try and take the area for themselves. A setting that, as soon as the Empire leaves, will go back to fighting itself: Skyrim was Skyrim and only had one real alternative, but Afghanistan has many.

Placement would be interesting: I'd say the American Apalachians, or possibly the Rockies near Washington. That would help with the terrain division. But just the Fallout twists to such a division would be interesting: I'd love to see Raider Gangs in gas station forts try and present themselves as the noble freedom fighters. Some perverse sense of 'we are the wasteland' pride that provides a common culture resisting assimilation. And, of course, infighting between the Insurgency, even as the Empire is incapable of putting it all to rest.

[Dean_the_Young]

Strangely, Insurgency Project picked up a lot of steam from Helicopters in Afghanistan. Forget Vietnam and Dragonflies in the Mist: Helicopters in Vietnam were Dragons, and not the easily killable kind either.

 

===

 

Here's a perspective on Afghanistan I bet you never had.

Moving around Afghanistan by helicopter is actually a lot like moving a player character around a world setting like Fallout: Vegas: major settlements are frequently 10-15 minutes from each other, with tons of small stops to pass by on the way. The time it takes you to pass major terrain features (mountains, valleys, etc.) isn't exactly the same, but roughly analogous to the general sort of overworld movement you get in a lot of games like that. Obviously, time grows if you get yourself bogged down in a random encounter, and there are always those little quests to do at the pit stops along the way between major places. And, if you really go off the beaten path, you can find treasure troves of weapons and what not, sometimes abandoned but sometimes guarded by mooks and bosses...

 

 

So I think Fantasy!Afghanistan needs Dragons. Not the European kind, but the serpentine kind, like from East Asia (or MesoAmerica). Creatures once wild and legendary, but now tamed and bred (and much improved by) by the Great Powers.

Dragons could replace helicopters, me thinks. You often see them flying in the sky, occasionally coming down low, and so on. Different breeds for different tasks.


The troop transports, the Blackhawks of the dragon kin... I have this cool-in-my-head vision of them being feathered dragons. More meso-american, more like some of the newer designs of dinosaurs with feathers rather than leather skin. These feather dragons, a bit softer and less intimidating, are able to carry people with special harnesses... with the passangers being kept warm and covered and (somewhat) safe within the feather coat along the sides of the dragon.

When it comes to landing, the feathered serpent comes down low and basically flies into a ring, right at ground level, and very slowly: the hover, if you will. The feathers raise, and the troops jump out: half on the 'outside' of the ring, and the rest on the inside. The dragon closes the feathers, takes off, and you have a unit of fantasy soldiers ready to take the fight to the enemy.



The attack dragons, the attack helicopters, are of a distinctly east-asian theme: scaled serpents, quick and fast and hard-hitting breath attacks, but also vulnerable to heavy weapons and such from ground beasts. They'd act a lot like the feathered dragons, but far more dangerous and fierce: possibly with more magical powers, like lighting or elemental attacks. These would be very dangerous in combat... but incredibly restricted to the AI, thanks to the Rules of Engagement. You have to play stupid, or seriously provoke the Empire, to actually get in combat with one of these: otherwise, they're emblematic of the overwhelming force that's rarely able to act freely that defines the Afghanistan Coalition Forces.

 

The mass transport dragons, the cargo helicopters, those would be the more western Dragons. The biggest, the slowest, the dumbest, but also the only ones with real hands/arms, able to carry cages of troops, supplies, or even other magical beasts into combat. They're big and powerful, but not really aggressive, and not necessarily dangerous either.

 

 

===

 

Anon wrote...

 

I love the "dragons as gunships" idea. Very vivid. I can also imagine how the distant US might seem as inscrutable and terrifying as a mighty magocracy to the locals. Deploying is definitely sparking some interesting thoughts for you.

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

Dragons are cool, I admit. Because my part of Afghanistan is actually a lot like parts of New Mexico/Vegas area, there's actually a lot of similarities between the terrain... enough so that in my mind, I actually picture Fallout: Vegas as a pretty basic template. When I think of Dragons, I think of my Wanderer trudging along a mountain-trail, looking over a ridge line towards the Ranger Monument... and seeing a sky-serpent peacefully looping overhead.

(I don't know if you ever played the game Journey, or Shadow of the Colossus, but they both are games in which there are giant flying serpent-dragons, which have an air of power and grace that I'll admit to finding beautiful despite myself. They could also be powerful and violent, but just watching them fly...)



And speaking of thoughts of the interesting kind, and Fallout, I've thought up the basic player character type: the Tribal.

The Tribal is more or less just one of the many, countless, ethnically diverse wandering tribes that go across the land. Like in Afghanistan, the tribes have their own relationships, rivalries, and vendettas which people assume you are a part of. (IE, instant role-playing distinction based on race: play as a -Insert Tribe-, and some quests open and some quests close because of world-reaction.) Obviously there are some tribes that ally with the Empire, and some that identify with the Insurgency.

You, the Tribal, are one of those general neutral-until-you-show-otherwise Bethesda-style characters, who ultimately gets sought by the factions, much like Skyrim. The Insurgents obviously want to play on tribal loyalties and nativism-culturalism-nationalism, or what have you. You start as a potential resource, before you grow big and powerful.

Siding with the Empire, though, has a bit cooler dynamic: they're interested in you because, as someone who isn't part of the Empire, you're not bound by the same rules as they are. Soldiers of the Empire have to follow the Rules of Engagement, and of course they would never encourage you to violate such honorable principles to complete the mission, wink wink nudge nudge...

(I have a feeling my view of Insurgency is going to be heavily shaped by my experience and exposure to RoE delimmas.)



Next time, I'll try and think up some good motivations for the Insurgency. I don't want to be too plageristic of the sand box, after all.

[Dean_the_Young]

Anon Asked...

 

What's the analogue for drone strikes? Literal bolts from the blue? Why does the Empire have ROE? I love the dynamic of their interest in the PC for his capability to fight outside the rulebook. That's an elegant way to explain the PC's Designated Protagonist status.

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

So, Insurgency-

I was thinking three ways. One was to associate it with dragons, and one was 'conventional' magic over-kill, and one was the invisible fear factor.

With dragons, I've toyed with the idea that dragons don't necessarily breath their element: that might be a cargo-dragon only. Something else I've seen, usually in Eastern animation, is the idea of dragons as spellcasters of sorts. A serpentine dragon flies around, and lightning generates around it and strikes down whoever is near. In that way, Drones might be the 'new' breed of micro-dragon: small, quick, but able to generate lightning bolds (or fire meteors or whatever) to come out of the sky and kill someone. Because of their size, they can breed easier, quickly, and escape notice.

Problem being, well, I'm not sold on non-breath weaponry for the dragons.


With 'conventional' magic, I was thinking super-magic artillery. Say there's a magical scrying field that the Empire (or big empires) run, which allows them to look and spy on things. When the scrying watches a target, a group of mages can cast a chant, which launches a super-guided-flaming-magic-trebuchet to hit the target. This is the sort of thing you would see across the world map, with regular streaks of fire at night (or day) going to various parts of the world map (and, if you're the lucky sector and trigger the random event, actually killing someone generated for the strike).

Problem being, well, this could just be the regular artillery/cruise missiles, with the range/power of artillery being dependent on the number/skill of mages. INS teams might have one or two, for example, for mortars. The chanting/incantation and travel time would also make a good analog for the delays in getting permissions to fire that we deal with in reality. The sort of 'by the time we get permission, they're gone', only with more mage-centric delays.



Third, and possibly best, is the Invisible Death, the Killing Curse. A summoned, almost invisible spirit, always at the edge of perception, that can (sometimes) be sensed but is almost impossible to stop. The Empire, which is one of the only ones able to do this, conducts some rite (which has some requirements like 'must know the true name of target' and 'must know what target looks like') and summons a shade/wraith/quasi-invisible spirit-demon thing that goes, hunts down, and kills the target. It's invisible, but not quite undetectable, and that's part of what makes it scary. When the Empire isn't specific enough (outdated pictures, names, etc.), the Wraiths have a tendency to go berserk and massacre not just the intended target, but those near them, which feeds the collateral damage idea. The Wraiths should be scary, terrifying entire villages, and borderline unholy.

I think this is a mostly cool idea, especially in the prospect of being a spawned encounter against the player: if you get too anti-empire, the launch one at you. This would be a high-level encounter akin to, say, a Legion or NCR assassination team.



As for RoE, I thought on that and felt the best reason in an archaic time would be 'because the Empress commands it.'

For some reason (flipped a coin, really), I see the Empire's situation like this: the Empire is drawing down from this area for reasons of enlightened self-interest (the more foresightful want to draw the Empire back from being over-extended, to allow it to live longer and grow again), while the Empress is both enlightened (in the sense she realizes over-extension is a bad idea) and kind-hearted (in which she wants to be an idealist). She might be a tad on the soft-hearted side, in the 'I saw the suffering of the victims of imperialism and horrors of war, and don't want the same to occur here.'

So the Empress, convinced that this scaling back of the borders is an important thing, makes a bunch of edicts amounting to 'set up an allied state' and 'do it without waging total war on the locals.' Which amounts to a very, very powerful faction limiting itself in all sorts of ways, and the rebellious locals exploiting it. Things like Dragons, which should be a huge deal if you're opposing the empire, not being allowed to attack you if you're not holding a weapon out.

Naturally there's friction in that (people who think it's stupid), imperfection/corruption (people who fail/people who actively subvert it), and general not-as-ideal-as-advertised. Which is why you, the local yokel, is important. Still, the intellectuals behind it go off a similar idea of COIN, so there's some logic behind the intent even if the execution is frustrating.

Which actually leads to something else I had in mind: the idea that an INS conventional victory doesn't happen, because if the INS get too successful the Empire throws out the RoE and launches a crackdown/re-occupation of the country. If the Empire does this, they 'win': there's no way the player character, no matter how advanced, can stand up to the full unleashed might of the empire, and there's no way the INS lasts in the face of it. The INS offensive is crushed, their villages razed, and in general some old school pacification makes a desert and calls it peace. The Empire effectively annexes the territory and goes on being a Superpower Empire. (If you're an Empire-leaning person, you can trigger this crackdown as well if you wish: probably by assassinating/let be assassinated the Regional General, a COIN-idealist, and letting his more aggressive second take command.)


Which isn't quite a victory, because there should be strong insinuations in the game that the empire getting out of not-Afghanistan is key to the Empire's long-term viability (recovering from over-expansion), and also that the Empire's enemies (not-Iran) are actually trying to provoke such an intervention. It's not quite a long-sighted vs. short-sighted argument, but what is 'best' for the Empire (if you care) and 'best' for not-Afghanistan is a more measured peace: either the host nation is able to stand on its own and the Empire leaves, or the INS are able to convince/negotiate a treaty with the Empire (only initiated and successful with player involvement) so that the Empire is allowed to leave in peace and accept the INS-dominated not-Afghanistan. An Empire crackdown helps some people, but not as much as one would want.

I wouldn't be so crass as to say this is the 'good' end, but I would want to temper the crackdown-enthusiasm by putting a few subtle limits in the narrative. For example, in the 'crackdown, empire victory,' the epilogue says something like 'and the Empire was a might Empire for two hundred years before it's demise,' with insinuation of Collapse. If you avoid the crackdown-ending, however, the epilogue makes no mentioned of the end of the Empire: it might last longer, it might be shorter, but the potential for longer optimism remains.


And so on. Thoughts?

 

===

 

anon wrote...

 

The more you add to Insurgency, the sexier I find it. I love both the artillery mage (including the rag tag insurgent mortar mage) and killing curse analogies. The wraith sounds like it could be absolutely terrifying if done correctly. (I remember the first time I encountered a cloaked nightkin in FNV, during the "Screams of Brahmin" side quest. I'd camped out near the ranch and was just watching it in the twilight. Suddenly I became aware of something barely visible moving across my line of vision. It was a real hackle raising sight.)

I think the player surviving a wraith attack should be a function of averting the attack rather than defeating it in combat. Hmm: those Legion Assassins were pretty ineffectual, right? What about writing an escalating series of actual scripted assassination attempts, ranging from "your bodyguard got turned and he poisons your wine" right up to "wraith strike"? Make the assassination attempts actually like storied mini-quests where your objective is to slip the noose somehow.

Question: are both Empire and Insurgents human? Is there mileage in the Empire being made up of dread elven beauties, or the Insurgents downtrodden orcs?

I guess one of the big writing challenges you are going to face is making this *too* close an analogy. Are you going to try and deliberately throw in some quirks that break the analogy? Also do you feel there's a risk of whitewashing the Taliban? Do the Insurgents need some kind of recent historic sin to put the occupation into some sort of context?

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

I'll be quoting your pieces bit by bit just to keep it easy for me to read what I'll address.

===
Hey buddy! Hope your weekend was nice. The gal and I went to dinner, watched Django Unchained, and had a little barbecue party yesterday. I am now listening to the new Queens of the Stone Age album while putting together a marketing campaign, and thinking that western civilisation is pretty awesome. Thanks for heading out to the frontier for me to stir some ****, I genuinely appreciate it.
===

Clearly that's what I'm here for. And i agree: western civilization is pretty awesome. One day I hope to go to Britain to find some. Lord knows American culture is illusive and hard to find...

===
The more you add to Insurgency, the sexier I find it. I love both the artillery mage (including the rag tag insurgent mortar mage) and killing curse analogies. The wraith sounds like it could be absolutely terrifying if done correctly. (I remember the first time I encountered a cloaked nightkin in FNV, during the "Screams of Brahmin" side quest. I'd camped out near the ranch and was just watching it in the twilight. Suddenly I became aware of something barely visible moving across my line of vision. It was a real hackle raising sight.)
===

I got one better on that: when I staked out the farm, I chose the exact same rock as the Night kin. It was so close I cursed in surprise, because 'bugger' was just about what it could have done from that distance.

The real question about mortars/artillery in the game is if/how they should factor into game play. I really don't think the player should get to use one as a tactical weapon, nor should it really be a common item to see. Ammo I could see being a loot-item, possibly being a crafting item for bombs, but mortar shells shouldn't be something you throw around in combat. Any mortar system should probably both be extremely heavy, and unusable.

Instead, something far more circumstantial and contextual would make more sense. Scripted missions, for sure: something like the Cerberus bomb intro in ME3, only with real damage. (So, in other words, the boomers of FNV).

I could also see some repeated-able missions in which you join the INS in doing a mortar attack on an Empire base. You and a few NPCs carry the heavy items to an area, trying to avoid patrols, and the NPCs set up the system and you press X to fire the round. Then you get out of dodge before the counter-fire comes (which is easy), and try and avoid the local dragon that's searching for you. If you make it out (and have proof you fired it: something like a camera item), you get some small XP and money and fame. These IDF have an actual chance to kill characters walking around.

The empire equivalent would be an artillery spotter mission: think the Repcon laser gun to call in an attack. To do so you have to find an INS camp/HVT, PID the target/individual, and keep eyes on while avoiding being spotted by locals or patrols. Caveat to this is that if 'civilian' NPCs get hurt in a CIVCAS, you lose karma/reputation/rewards, and can't re-do the mission unless your reputation is a certain level.

In other words: INS IDF is an easy way to build reputation, and doesn't care about casualties. Empire IDF is riskier, and may only be available if you already have positive reputaiton.


===
I think the player surviving a wraith attack should be a function of averting the attack rather than defeating it in combat. Hmm: those Legion Assassins were pretty ineffectual, right? What about writing an escalating series of actual scripted assassination attempts, ranging from "your bodyguard got turned and he poisons your wine" right up to "wraith strike"? Make the assassination attempts actually like storied mini-quests where your objective is to slip the noose somehow.
===

I like this idea, and not because I already thought of something like it. Elevated attempts could go like Local Police-Local Military-Empire Troops-SWAT Team/Legion Assassins.

In my mind, the Wraith quest chain only kicks off when you are a certain level of infamy with the Empire. You'd get a prompt to go to a place to meet some INS contacts (it might need to be scripted, sort of like the Dark Brotherhood quest of Skyrim where you get kidnapped in your sleep), or it could occur whenever you got close enough to a generic INS building (possibly your local IDF-mission contact). What would happen is that as you approached/left the building, you'd hear the wail of a wraith, screams and carnage, and get a mission prompt to check the building. When/if you did, you'd see the dying Wraith surrounded by blood spatters, chaos (say a in-game bomb detonated in the room, creating a mess), and the corpses of the INS.

Congratulations: a Wraith strike just missed you. As a helpful NPC will come up and inform you, that means the Empire has your name and face, and has decided to take you out. It's only a matter of time until the next attempt on your life, and next time you might not be so fortunate (and the next Wraith will be the real deal).

This starts the 'try to stay alive' quest, in which if you get spotted/scanned by any Empire-related force, faction, or dragon (normally a non-issue due to RoE), an Assasin Team and/or Dragon and/or Wraith will be incoming shortly. Wraiths will come regardless. The player can't fast-travel (part of the Empire's Wraith Curse?), and has to sneak around/fight through to an INS sanctuary, who will re-enable fast travel, but your risk for being attacked remains high.

The INS have a means of cleansing the curse: also a good opportunity to enter a reset-facial identity as well, to lower your profile. With your new quest, you go get the stuff you need, and the finale involves defeating/shifting the curse somehow: say you need Wraith blood. You can do that by killing a Wraith yourself (and possibly set a trap for the Wraith to make that easier), or you could sneak in some guarded facility and get some, or you could pay a lot of money/resources to INS-backers/foreign interests who will provide the materials to you. (Also, possible speach check of 'you want me alive to keep bothering them.' to convince foreign interests.)

Once you deal with the Wraith Curse, the threat goes down. You can still be targeted, but it would be more as a result of a random encounter/Empire Informant* spotting you than a regular occurrence.

Which leads me to today's new INS idea...

---

Informants

So, I'm thinking that part of the INS narrative needs to involve creating and/or hunting informants within the populace. This would be something for those bland/nameless NPCs to do.

The way the Informant system would work is that every nameless NPC, those random squatters/drifters/villagers with no single quest role, is assigned a hidden value: pro-Empire, pro-INS, neutral, or pro-player. These values also apply to major NPCs as well, and those scripted traitors, but we'll focus on the nameless.

So the alignment works a bit like a the faction-identity, but hidden. Basically, when a Informant sees you, they see whatever a faction-related member would see: they'll see your reputation. They themselves won't act, but when the player walks away they are considered 'spotted': the Informant, once out of view, goes and informs their contact/radio/whatever and off-screen tells whoever that you're around. (IE, the informant does nothing exceptional.)

When Spotted, the player's reputation and what not are checked. When you have enough Spot reports, and a high enough reputation, you are more likely to spark certain random encounters.

At low levels of reputation, INS/Empire soldiers might approach and warn you away from associating with the other faction... or they might offer you a job to 'redeem' yourself by spying. At higher levels, you may spark firefights (empire won't attack a disliked, but might attack a 'hated': say a random encounter of 'you killed my friend/brother: this is personal'). At the highest levels, you start getting those wraiths/assassins/poisoning attempts.

This all varies by area to area, of course, but general intent is there. So, how do you manage it?

Well, you start by neutralizing/turning/creating informants. Which brings in those repeatable side-quests.

Obviously, neutralizing an informant removes a spotter for the enemy. You could just kill people... but that hurts reputation, and you don't know who's who. There are some sidequests for the scripted spies, but those are separate. Instead, you get your faction's investigation quest. Basically you either break in and try and find 'proof', do a stake out of a possible area, or try and observe a exchange of sort between the informant and a mission-generated contact. Once you identify an informant, they can be killed/arrested (or, depending on ability/reputation/random personality type, bribed/coerced/threatened into working for you). A follow-on of these is that after you identify the enemy observor, letting the mission handler know leads to generic/scripted cutscene of the local enforcers going and arresting/executing the informant. You can watch, or help, or not, as you choose.


Second method is propoganda missions. Propoganda missions can include night letters (INS), delivering supplies (Empire), and having meetings/mass addresses to the local populace in a mission type. Pamplets and supplies are 'easy', but have a fixed chance of working... and you don't necessarily see the change in if anyone has changed their views. Group Meetings are 'best' for staying engaged with the populace, and offer a chance for speech checks, but also have a higher risk of a spoiler attack by INS/ dragon strike by Empire to ruin the meeting.


Creating informants is the third method. It would have to be limited in viability and number, and would often be the hardest/costliest to maintain: if you simply pay a person, you have to keep paying them which means a constant outflow. Depending on circumstance, you could blackmail/threaten informants into line if they have a (random chance) family member or what not, and you have the reputation/speach check to do it.


A special/alternate thing I'd point out is the idea of informants being pro-player: this means the player (for whatever reason) wins the personal trust of the informant, rather than pushing the informant to side with one faction or the other. 'Personal' informants, who may be grateful quest recipients or who fearful parents whose children you've threatened, will be loyal to you and whatever faction you support... which means if you change faction-alignment, or try a third-path* play through, they'll follow you.

This means that, as a player goes through the game and does quests, they'll gather their own observer network loyal to them. In effect, you can play your own spy-master, and build your own support base.

As a balance to all this, however, support/alignment among observers should gradually revert if left unattended. People may be temporarily placated by a speach check or gifts... but if the money doesn't keep coming, the locals may turn.



The shape of an observer network in an area carries pluses and minuses depending on alignments, and shaping the public support has both an impact on the war (nominally) but also can bring benefits to the player.

In an area with a hostile observer network, enemy spot checks are higher and you're more likely to receive hostile random encounters. Basically it's harder for you to keep a low profile, sneaking is harder, and higher levels of animosity you'll spark more Wraith strikes/INS Assassins.

Friendly observers, however, bring in more pluses for the player. Ideally, when the player has a local contact in the area (the pro-Player informant), the player can start to get a feel of what's in the area or get leads on new missions. HUMINT reports from observers can give you tip-offs about local INS/CF patrols (a lead-in to 'hunt down enemy group' repeatable missions), inform the player about rumors/what not of the local area (basically: giving the player another local information flow rather than talking to all the local people personally), tip off the player about local areas of interest ("I heard about a cache in a small cave, let me put it on your map"), and so on.

You could even have a general, non-specific tracker of what the local atmospherics are. Clue words about how many informants each group in the area has ("people are divided", the effects of your propoganda/recruitment attempts ("more people are supporting X because of Y"). Your local informant network could also provide clues/leads into ferreting out other informants, helping you ferret out the traitors.


And so on. Needs more thinking, but it's another 'can repeat as often as you like' sort of war-running mission set for the player.



Also, since I mentioned it, the 'Third Route' option...

===

Becoming not-Karzai

===

Very short now, since I'm running out of time. Basically, the pro-Empire/pro-local government route hits you alot with how bad the local government is, with its factional politics and corruption. If you support the local government, eventually you get to reap the rewards of that corruption. If you support the INS, you're tossing that government out.

It's vague in my head now, but the idea of supporting neither the local government or the INS, but building your own power base (such as the informant network) could lead to you, the player, becoming a Warlord/Power Broker with sufficient influence to outright replace not-Karzai.

Basically, if you play a pro-local government playthrough, you get so high up that you can bump-off/replace not-Karzai, and become the leader of the Empire-supported local government. At the same time, if you played an anti-local government playthrough and helped the INS (more or less) set up a shadow government/parallel state, you could attempt to replace the local government in full as part of the INS campaign.

The Empire is the key factor in the end-game, of course. They'll be happy enough to support you after you've proved yourself pro-Empire enough, since it's just trading one proxy for another, but it's the INS-aligned player-state that gets interesting. You'd still get squashed by the Empire on this third-route if you tried to seize power but opposed the empire... but if you cut a deal with the Empire, respecting their interests/letting them leave peacefully/etc., they could be convinced to leave an independent, nominally INS-aligned, but player-dominated region behind.

This could be one of two INS-victory routes, in a sense: either the player pushes the INS ruling council/alliance to make a peace deal with the Empire (harder), or the player pushes the INS ruling council aside and does it themselves.



A bit tricky to plan, and it needs some thought, but this leads the end-states of the game to roughly be a 'peace' (Empire leaves) and 'crackdown' (Empire doubles-down) for the INS, not-GIRoA, and Player end-game paths.


===

Question: are both Empire and Insurgents human? Is there mileage in the Empire being made up of dread elven beauties, or the Insurgents downtrodden orcs?

===

In concept they are all human, and I see no real reason for them to change. Not to say they couldn't: I'm not invested. It just isn't a major part of it to me.

If they were to get fantasy species, I see them both as being multi-ethnic: the many tribes of not-Afghanistan being different species, while the Empire being a multi-species state in its own right (though possibly dominated by X), with the Empire's various allies/vassals being the more single-species groups. Depending on how the Empire is structured, it could be more of an experimental/novel 'alliance of races', brought together in fear against the historic not-Russian/other Hoard of X. I kind of would like the Empire itself to be a more multi-species polity in its own right, independent of its allies, but I can be sold.

While myriads of fantasy species could work as a substitute for nations, they aren't central to this.


===
I guess one of the big writing challenges you are going to face is making this *too* close an analogy. Are you going to try and deliberately throw in some quirks that break the analogy? Also do you feel there's a risk of whitewashing the Taliban? Do the Insurgents need some kind of recent historic sin to put the occupation into some sort of context?
===

The first thing I'd do is make a disclaimer that says "This project was inspired by my own experiences and the recounted experiences of many other people of the Afghan War. While many deliberate similarities and parallels are intended, others that people will doubtlessly find or perceive were not. The perceptions and motivations people see of this work are their own, and should not be confused with the countless compromises, individual views of the creators and references, and fictional creations that comprise this story."

In other words, if someone comes up to me and says 'with character X you are claiming Y', and I did not intend for character X to represent Y view, I will laugh in their face.


That said, I would create deliberate quirks and such to differentiate characters: the not-Karzai, for example, would only be really, really loosely based on Karzai, and definitely not in terms of looks.

The not-empires, such as not-Iran and not-Russia, would probably not be particularly recognizable past the 'historic adversary/rival of the Empire.'

History would also be changed: since the Empire is looking to abandon a long-held piece of territory, the Soviet War/Occupation would probably be represented in terms an occupation during a great war in the past, in which the the Empire 'won' but parts of it (like not-Afghanistan) were overrun and only returned after the peace.


I would definitely, definitely change the religious connotations of the INS. I understand it's a big piece of the actual INS, but here I'd probably replace it with valid historical grievances and more secular cultural differences.

The biggest one, correlating to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, would be that the INS sees itself as a long ignored, long-marginalized part of the Empire (both true) that was cruelly abandoned to the not-Russians during the Hot War and left to fight on its own (not quite true: the Empire simply could not hold the territory). After fighting on their own for their liberation (half-true: the Empire sent supplies and aid as best it could), the Empire unjustly reclaimed and re-occupied the freed lands and installed a puppet regime (half-true: the Empire returned, suppressed the warlords who had risen and were fighting a civil war, and put one who proclaimed fealty to the Empire in power).


Another one of the thematic differences is the role of imperialism in the narrative and over-arching prompt. In some ways, I'd merge the American Empire of 2012 (I hate that term and use it ironically, btw) with the British Empire's experiences post-WW2. Decolonizalization is a big piece of the Empire's intent to leave Afghanistan, and could be heard as a part of the greater movement across the Empire (which may be part of the role of the vassal-allies) to de-centralize and recover the costs of Empire and the Hot War.

The Hot War itself could be sort of a mix of a non-nuclear cold war gone hot, but with fantasy-WW2/WW3 tech. So when the not-Russian Hoarde was broken, not-Easter Europe became part of the Empire/its vassal allies (a hazy term, again), and in some ways the Empire seems more powerful than ever. At the same time, the costs were huge, the damage tremendous, and the Empire as it was is unsustainable. So the Empire in INS is doing what the British Empire tried (and didn't succede) at doing after WW2: to scale back costs and commitments of the Empire, to preserve the Empire. And, thanks to player agency and what not, that will depend on how not-Afghanistan goes: if the Empire is able to convince itself to leave, it can gain breathing space to recover and consolidate with its allies, even if it is reduced (the probable American Empire of post-Afghanistan/Iraq). If it cracks down and over-extends itself, it will suffer the fate of the British Empire and, eventually, break apart from over-extension and unbearable costs.


That make sense?

[Dean_the_Young]

The Influence Economy System begins to take root.

 

The game State of Decay became a notable influence on the development of the premise of a faction/reputation system, moving it away from Fallout: Vegas where gains and losses were permanent, and moving 'reputation/approval' into a semi-transactional system.

 

 

===

 

Anon wrote...

While you're away you missed a really interesting development in the gaming world. The zombie game I mentioned, State of Decay, went up on Xbox Live Arcade. It's been the fastest selling new IP on Xbox ever, having shifted 550,000 copies in the first couple of weeks. I haven't read any expert commentary on what that means, but I'm hopeful that this will trigger an "indie" game renaissance.

Having played it for a couple of nights I have to say it's an incredible accomplishment for a small studio with no track record. It's just a great game on its own merits, let alone with the $20 price tag. It doesn't feel like any corners have been cut: all the characters are fully voiced (and acted well), the dialogue writing is *great*, and what I've seen of the plot is very encouraging.

It's paced brilliantly, by the way. The game fades in to your buddy Ed being swarmed by zombies and yelling for help. The game grabs you (or at least your best friend) by the neck right from the start and doesn't let go.

In terms of gameplay, imagine Grand Theft Auto but with zombies, built on top of a sub game about building a survivalist community. It's got flaws (most notably the quirky save system, which firstly *fails* any remaining side missions when you save and quit, and secondly depletes your resource stockpile when you log back on based on how long since you last played), but it's a great game, and if it means that games can get released without risking AAA budgets I think it bodes really well for the future.

It introduces a mechanic that I think could work really well for Insurgency, which is Influence. You accumulate Influence by completing quests, bringing in supplies, giving pep talks to dispirited survivors, etc. You expend Influence by taking supplies, ordering community members around, and calling in support activities. Influence decreases over time. In Insurgency you could use a mechanic like that to regulate the amount of backup you could call in; artillery mages, dragons, wraith strikes, etc.

Your idea of becoming your own warlord intrigues me, and thinking about it is something that was lacking from Skyrim. I felt that my Dovahkiin should have been raising a war-band and becoming a power player in Imperial politics (the man's got the blood of the Emperors running through his veins, for ****'s sake!). If that game had an Influence system I could have hassled Jarl Ulfric for gold, fighting men, some land, his daughter, etc., in return for getting him closer to the throne.

It would also be interesting if my Influence could have affected the agendas of the NPC factions. Like for an Influence hit, I could wrangle better treatment for the dark elves in Windhelm – but that's Influence I could have spent getting a base upgrade. That would be an interesting way to make altruistic players put their money where their mouths are – would everybody really be a Paragon if the bill was coming out of their own pocket rather than somebody else's?

Your talk about the setting's history sparked an idea about how the player could learn that history through the game rather than as an info-dump at the start, but I've got to get to another meeting now! No rest for the wicked. I'll send the idea later.

 

Okay! My idea was just that it might be amusing if, as a tribal, the player character really had very little idea about the setting's history beyond how it affected his starting village. The Imperials would be the only NPCs able to accurately describe anything approaching world politics and history.

This would (a) further differentiate the Imperial faction, ( save the player from a big historic info-dump right at the start and © introduce conflict into expository dialogue, which would spice it up. An Imperial officer exasperatedly trying to explain why everything your elders taught you is totally inaccurate would lead to more zingy dialogue than the normal RPG "Tell me about the history of your people" kind of chat.

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

Heh. It's always rich when foreigners know more about your historical (myths) than you, and I can see it working. I might of had a thought or two of a somewhat self-insertions of sorts in which various exasperated Imperials give an all-too-frank assessment of things.

I also had a related, sort-of-example idea in the form of dragons. So Dragons are tamed... but obviously before they were tamed, they were wild. And when they were wild, they were the stuff of legends. And legends, of course, are exaggerated.

So there would be this sort of side-quest in which the some Insurgents, possibly a Necromancer (a rare and specialized breed of magic), wanting to even the odds against Imperial aerial superiority, hatch a scheme to unleash the Great Wyrm of Legend that was Sealed Long Ago by ancient magics*. The INS want you to go find the GWL, free it from its tomp, and... well, something about controlling it by necromancy, but final step is profit.

*My view on industrialized magics: great mages of olds were like master carpenters: they could match the quality of machine tools, sometimes, but not the output.


The thing is, the Imperials also have a lead-on in this quest... as an archeology expedition of sorts. Think Victorian/Napoleon museum piece hunting, only the University of Emperium wants to investigate the not-Afghanistan history and such and wants you to look into the GWL Tomb.

So, either way, you go, and man is it an impressive tomb. Think a Skyrim underground mauseleum of sorts, only filled with epic stone work and codex-entries of the size and scope of the legendary Wyrm, complete with statues far bigger than any living dragon. You do deeper, foil the traps, ignore the warnings of 'Turn Back!' or 'There Be Curses!', and find what must be the tomb room. You go, you fight Dragonlings, you make to break the seal of the great, giant sarcophogus...

...and inside are the bones of a long-dead dragon of very modest propotions. Small, even. Which fabbergasts the INS contact, who's convinced this is a Terrible Secret That Must Be Hidden for the Pride Of The Nation.

And the Imperial Scholar goes 'Well, Duh. It was an Ancient Dragon, after all,' and points out the effects of hundreds of years of selective breeding in making dragons smarter and bigger.






Influence... from what I've seen from State of Decay, it's definitely something with promise. I dislike the concept of 'lose resources while you don't play', but the idea of reputation being a form of currency?

It definitely goes well with what I think would be a cornerstone of INS: dynamic, infinitely-repeatable missions of waging the war. Quasi-randomly generated mission sets, which you can solicit and repeat as many times as you want, would be a key way to not only get resources like money and XP (and achievements), but also to build reputation. Reputation could then be spent, like convincing a prison guard to release someone or asking for help.

We'd have to think what uses it would have as a mainstay, or constant expenditure, to justify using. I could definitely see a 'hire packmule-companion' option, in which you spend influence to rent someone to help carry gear and loot, or just an NPC companion like the NCR trooper reinforcement. So for 25 Influence you hire a gopher who will carry junk for you, for 50 you hire common soldier, etc. etc. etc.

Influence could also be used for various stat boosts and temporary abilities and such. Imagine if access to certain stores and places, not even buying things but just access, cost influence? Or you could trade in your influence for high-cost items (medicines from the Empire, drugs from the INS). You could even buy/rent perks: at a hefty 300 Influence, for example, any -insert faction- who sees you in a fight will come running over to help you out for a certain amount of time.

Obviously each faction would have its own influence-perk: for enough Influence (and a back-room deal) the Empire might give you a ride on a dragon (special quick-travel?) or call in a dragon-strike, while the INS might deliver some high-power (but single-use) weapons for you.





Gave a few thoughts on Companions as well, and came up with a pair of brief archetypes.


So a general INS-leaning Companion would be a Pashtun-archetype: code of honor, land of our forefathers, etc. Sympathizes with and gives insight into the INS, and probably has a bit of backstory with the war.

The Pashtun code, though, is the hook that drives the anti-Emperialism: something like an Emperial soldier was responsible for killing his sibling, and so he's honor-bound (and family-bound) for revenge.

A sort of Cassidy-esque companion quest would follow, in which you can find the soldier, and the player would have two different ways to settle the score. One is simply killing the soldier, an eye for an eye. Simple and direct and anti-Empire. The other, longer and harder, is to find proof of some sort and get the Empire to convict: it's long, hard, and requires some good words to the Companion, but ultimately the Empire would try one of its own soldiers for murder, and when the Imperial is arrested the Companion feels honor is satisfied and drops the anti-Empire vendetta.



A quasi-Imperial archetype would be the Soldier of Fortune. Or, in more modern terms, the ex-military civilian contractor, IE Blackwater. A former soldier who now gets paid a lot more to act a lot more freely, the SoF (see what I did there?) is up for hire and of negotiable integrity. Not necessarily a die-hard patriot, the SoF gives a Imperial Soldier perspective jaded with cynicism and what not. Sympathetic, if not gungho, to the Empire.










And more to follow later, I'm sure.

[Dean_the_Young]

Oh, to be sure, something that may or may not be true... but will be in Insurgency regardless.

So once upon a time there was a local patrol that found a truck parked near a tree. Their trainer, trying to teach them the right way to deal with a possible VBIED, tried to convince them to call for EOD. Not wanting to bother, one of the police had an 'accidental' negligent discharge of an RPG... that missed the truck.

But not the tree! For out of the tree fell an INS, hiding in the leaves, holding a detonation switch. He fell on the truck, on the switch, and soon the viewers were treated to a hilarious premature detonation.

 

===

 

So, other possible archetypes.

I was thinking a not-Russian, sort of a grizzled invader who stayed behind and went native. Do Orcs go native? Regardless, and this might be a good case for a exotic flair of sorts, someone neutral to both major factions.


An 'enlightened' woman, sort of a parallel to a female liberal local national. IE, a rare and dying breed, only this is one who doesn't take acid to the face without firing back.


Etc. etc.

 

===

 

anon wrote...

 

That anecdote is actually hilarious. Thanks.

I like the companion archetypes, especially the not-Russian. You will have to tread very carefully with the woman in order to not trivialise the oppression of women – I mean you have to avoid sending the message that all it takes is a weapon and a certain attitude to get the patriarchy to treat you with respect. This goes back to the conversation we had regarding The Witcher and Dragon Age's different treatments of women. I think DA trivialised how difficult it would be for a woman to become a warrior by making women warriors so incredibly common and unremarkable. Witcher did it much better with Ves.

You didn't mention much about gender roles in not-Afghanistan. Are you going for parallels here, or looking to diverge? Would female PC be an option?

I love the diminutive ancient dragon!

I think one constant drain on Influence could be petitioners - as the PC gains power, he starts to attract a constant stream of NPCs coming to him for various favours. I really liked the scenes in DA:Awakening where the Warden Commander had to make rulings in various disputes.

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

I think the gender roles in not-Afghanistan should be a mix of the Afghan/Iraqi female roles, which is not particularly flattering but also not as clear-cut as western interpretation implies. I once knew a Turk who gave me a good deal of insight into some of the origins of the practices we see today as restrictive, but back at their inception had better reasons and justifications that made sense for the time period. Restrictions about letting women travel alone and without family members, for example, came when banditry was far more common on the roads... and so were feral packs of feral dogs that could easily overwhelm a lone woman. A number of the restrictions, while patriarchial and a mysogynistic by today's standards, were intended to help protect women, not enslave them. Men not addressing the women of another family without permission is an expression of respect, not disdain: a sort of 'I will not covet and leer at your precious family member.'

The Burka is a good example. It's the most visible Western image of female suppression, but I've heard and read interviews with Iraqi women who felt differently. Even apart from the desexualization -> less rape of innocent women mentality, there were other perceived pluses. The design and creation of a burka could be a cherished gift from family, a gift crafted with love and care and a beautiful thing in its own right. Then there were the female intellectuals who felt the Burka was a key to earning respect in their own right: not because they were submitting to cultural expectations, but because while wearing the burka they were respected for their words and their mind, and not just their bodies. The burka was a means by which they were liberated from other expectations and able to prove themselves to others.


You're right that it would take care, caution, and I'd actively look for experience and perspectives not our own. But I'd want to show multiple sides, good and evil: the oppressive, mysogynistic, traditionalist mentality that believes women should know their place because that's how it's always been, and the sort that value it because of the reasons behind it. I'd also want to make people aware of what and how other viewpoints could see the flaws in our own treatment of women: for example, to a mentality that despises the idea of prostitution, western sexual liberation (and, in germany, legalized prostitution and the abuses that has brought about) is both immensly disrespectful and outright harmful to women by encouraging thinking about them as sex objects. I can't say I don't prefer our western viewpoints, but I can appreciate some of the points of the alternatives.

I think the female character's plot would have to emphasize how atypical she is in her own culture, and work to emphasize that bringing about culture change from the inside is a long, hard process that involves compromises.

If the player supports/encourages outright westernism, if they directly oppose and confront the not-Afghanistan practices, then the resulting flares will end up leaving the female character ostracized and ultimately an outsider and likely cast from her homeland. I could see two main ending slides for her at this point: if the Empire leaves, and if the Empire stays. If the Empire leaves, she ends up leaving with them, and while enjoying the female liberation of the Empire she holds guilt about the women she left behind and failed to 'save.' On the other hand, if the Empire cracks down and stays, a feminist!FemComp will end up being more or less a leading collaborator, handling the Empire's female policy and working very hard to overturn the not-Afghanistan cultural views of women... but, since I think the Westernism route for her needs a bit of bittersweet regardless, her feminist crusade eventually leads to her assassination after she makes great changes.

The other route would be if you convinced her to moderate her views and clashes, and to try and make changes from the inside over the long haul. The most visible concession of this would be her wearing a hijab and otherwise modest clothing (such as covering up her arms and ankles). This route, while requiring more compromise from her, leaves her accepted by her culture, and in a position in which she can make changes gradually and over time. Mobilizing the women to speak through their husbands, spreading education first on grounds of being better house-wives and then branching from there, moderate reforms that the men-folk are convinced to accept. In this way, even if/when the Empire leaves, she faces difficulty but is able to make lasting gains for the local women (such as, to pick a noble achievement, education and a university). If the Empire does stay, her moderation and acceptance of the cultural traditions acts as a check on the Empire's own female liberalization intent: while accepting and encouraging the good, she becomes a key voice in stopping such 'liberalizing' measures as a hijab-ban that the Empire would have tried to enforce.

Thinking on it as I write, I kind of want to give her a support cast to give context to her trial: a family (with father, mother, siblings), but potentially also a love-interest. The key male influences in a generic woman's life in the father, the brother, and the lover, and they would be the conduit of the 'good' side of the not-Afghan culture, of the good intent and protective rations for these things. So when she clashes with the culture, she's also clashing with her family (who is culturally traditional), rather than just some mysogynistic made-to-hate *******. In a sense, our recruiting her could come in the context of 'disaffected woman stifled by family that is trying to protect her', with such things as the father wanting her to stop expressing such views (because it's putting her life in danger from asshat INS). Her joining the companion is pretty much her running away from Home... though the actual recruitment conditions should provide a context for her to be able to leave in a socially acceptable way. If the player is male, for example, the Father might publicly lie and claim that the player is a cousin, and thus an acceptable escort. If the player is female... well, more hoops to jump through, but still doable.

For the Feminist's love interest in particular, I think the idea of a supportive but culturally traditional man would make a good support dynamic. He'd definitely be a more noble sort of Pashtun honor code, and a good man in his own right: the love-tension would be mutual, but all the more troubled by the culture clash. There would also be a bit of player-NPC tension if the player is male, but the key component is that he loves the Feminist (enough to fight for her, but to also let her go on her journey: remember the adage about if you love someone, you must be willing to let them go: if they don't return, they were never yours to begin with), and that she loves him. If the player kills the LI, or let's him get killed as a result of anything, she'll either attack the player (who kills her) or she leaves the party and wanders until death.

As a resolution for his part of her character arc, well... not sure. If you push the liberalism and the Empire leaves, I'm torn on whether he should follow her away from the country or not. If the Empire stays, I'm still not sure. I kind of want the Liberalism character resolve to end with them breaking up over incompatible views. In the conservative path, however, there's a bit happier end: he supports her, and by adding his voice to hers he's able to give her influence that she wouldn't otherwise have.





And, final note before I go-

Petitioners could be interesting, especially in the 'become a warlord' path. There would have to be a cost associated with it, though, and a cost if you started but backed out of the path. Like if you agree to be a mediator for an area, but then you don't take the time to mediate, you lose even more influence. And when you rule against someone, for whatever reason, there should be a chance that their loyalties shift against you and whatever faction you're identified with. So ruling against A about his lost goat results in him being an observer for the INS.

[Dean_the_Young]

I was thinking on cities and DLC/expansions, and thought that the question of how to handle the first might tie in well to the second. Something about Vegas never really felt right to me, with how compact/limited the city is, but I greatly enjoyed FO3's limited expanse of DC and the DLC of The Pitt.

So I'm thinking Insurgency's main game should be set outside the capital region. Some small towns, perhaps, but being outside the not-Kabul would help keep the sense of scale appropriate: an airport like Camp McCarran can make a convincing scale size for a military base, but not a city. Most of the Vegas stuff actually sort-of-fits the scope and scale of the settlements of Afghanistan, at least from a map scale perspective.

So, instead, we have Insurgency set outside the capital region in a de-facto decisive region. The Gates to Kabul, in a sense, in which the capital is a often-reference but never seen figure. (Or, alternatively, can only be seen at the edge of the map, far in the distance.) This can be used to help the feeling of dislocation and idea that the corrupt government really doesn't have a place out here in the real country.

For the DLC, though, an impetus comes up as word of violence in the capital spreads, and the player goes to the Capital. Which is more Baghdad than Kabul, particularly Baghdad 2007 or so. There's an INS uprising, or rather an INS extremist faction is attempting to spark a sectarian conflict within the city by launching attacks on different tribes and such, hoping to spark a sectarian conflict that will toss the Empire out. This is a strategy so radical that not even the entire INS leadership council approves of it, and these extremists (the AQ in Iraq analogs) are effectively a rogue faction.

So, in a rare moment of common cause, both the Empire and the INS are trying to hunt these rogue cells, figure out why they're doing what they're doing, and figuring out who's behind it. In the end, the backers are not-Iran, who is supporting the INS in their own game of influence in the post-evacuation. Not-Iran was using the AQI as a catspaw to weaken both the Empire and the INS, and to create a power vacuume after the intended civil war. The player can ultimately stop the rogue faction, or let them continue, with the implication that letting the rogue faction continue may ultimately help the INS and/or significantly raise the influence/warlord prospects of the player.


The tone of the mission would be a bit of a chaotic city warzone, or as much as Baghdad was. The two sides of the untrusting alliance, both the INS and the Empire, would play out with a more spy-story tone. The Empire in particular would be represented by 'Agents of the Empress', a quasi-CIA/intelligence agency private arm of the Empress: basically a CIA paramilitary group in the capital.

The INS... well, not so sure.


Anyways, the map would be a something of a cross of the size of Point Lookout with the buildup and urbanization of The Pit. Carbombs, rat holes in the building walls, sewer INS... a big deal of the city, with smoke and ashes and a sense of uneasy peace, with multiple ethnic groups also duking it out.
 

===

 

anon wrote...

 

The points you raise about the sensible (or at least defensible) roots of gender restrictions "over there" were interesting. I admit, I hadn't given it much thought beyond "all their chicks should be allowed to wear bikinis" (which is the compromise point I'm willing to settle on, my desired law in fact being "all chicks everywhere should *only* be allowed to wear bikinis" of course).

You reminded me of a parable I have sometimes quoted to others, so thank you for reminding me to think about things before I develop an opinion on them. In case you haven't heard of Chesterton's Fence, here is the short version:

'In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.'

That said, all their chicks should be allowed to wear bikinis.

I like your thoughts on FemCompanion – I think you've done her justice. Your project is beginning to take on a really individual voice, which you can't *often* say about a fantasy story.

Do you know much about local myth and legend? Maybe some local mythology would help to further un-Tolkien the setting.

Since you can't play it, let me mention another mechanic in State of Decay that some are calling a bug, but I think is actually quite inventive. Basically the game *overwhelms* you with dynamically generated missions. It is possible to get through them all, usually, if you prioritise well and no disasters occur. But doing so can tie you down, so (for instance) you never get around to gathering the materials you need to carry out your desire of moving your home base from location A to location B.

Now I would concede this system is inelegant, and maybe even frustrating, which are two words I doubt you would find in any game design document anywhere. However, what I think it does brilliantly is simulate real leadership, when it feels like everybody wants to distract you and it takes a Herculean effort to actually get any of your own initiatives actioned. (Or that's what it feels like when I'm in command, anyway ).

What's missing, maybe, is a delegation mechanic. It would be awesome if, instead of doing task A myself I could choose either to not do it (resulting in consequences)...or I could assign Companion X to the job.

Ideally every Companion assignment would be performed with varying degrees of **** up, which slowly decreased the more assignments you sent them on. (For instance, sending Boone on the mission type "negotiation" results in bad deals because the position he took was too hardline. Sending Veronica is bad for the opposite reason. Sending Lily has random, weird outcomes because she's a crazy old lady. Each time they carry out a negotiation mission, their capabilities improve, except for Lily, because she's a crazy old lady.)

This might be moving too much into a leadership simulator, but I am feeling in New Vegas that it's a shame I have all these awesome buddies that I can't really put to use as anything other than bodyguards. I felt the same in Mass Effect, and Dragon Age, where the majority of my squad seemed to spend their time on the bench. What do you think? I guess it's your talk of a Warlord path that's set me thinking along these lines.

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

Funny you mention delegtion, because I was musing on that a bit. I don't think such mechanics should be allowed for major missions, but given that my vision of the game involves quasi-infinite repeatability of some missions sets for minor rewards and influence (like setting up an IDF attack), or constantly ongoing social maintenance (spy hunting/mediation requests)

I think a delegation mechanic could be used in terms of handling dynamic missions of the repetitive sort: those influence-grind/infinite repeatable tasks, such as conducting IED/IDF attacks, hunting for informants, and local mediation efforts. Let's say that you can't task them for the first quest in a quest line (you have to do it yourself first), but for repeatable quests if you take them with you once, they can do it in the future. Then, like you say, some would be better and some would be worse, with possible improvement over time. At which point it becomes a case of balancing 'do I want this companion with me, or to go off and manage my affairs/power base.'

Obviously companions can't be completely successful/as successful as the boss, and so their efforts should occassionally cause problems. A failed attack which costs you money and influence: a conflict resolution which generates some discontent and another enemy informant: etc. And, the big one, the catastrophic failure: now, I'm against killing companions off-screen as a matter of principle, since all it would really do is promote save-scumming, but I can see a failed attack mission generating a major-injury/arrest of the NPC. Either the Companion 'just barely survives', and is off the roster for X hours (unless you have medical skills/pay for a doctor to speed it along), or the companion gets arrested.

Which could actually spawn an interesting, if frustrating, side quest chain in which you have to go through exceptional effort to regain the companion. In a difficulty scaling with level and infamy, the Companion is held by the faction your were attacking and it's up to you to negotiate a release/free them. You could spend reputation (if you have any with the faction) by vouching for character, pay a bribe for release, or just try and break in/storm the prison, etc. If you were an INS, you could even try kidnapping Imperials or Local Nationals to use as bartering chips. If you were in the Empire's good graces (and/or make it worth their while), you could get a night raid mission in which special forces drop to free the prisoner 'while being moved between prisons', ie.a pseudo-random village location.


I actually see this not so much as a chain, but as a tier of related missions in which the prison your companion gets taken to depends on your level of infamy/player level with that faction. The more hated you are, the more careful they'll be, and so they move your companion into a more secure location.

So at Low/Positive levels of infamy, it's just a town cell, a one-building center with locked doors and windows. It's relatively trivial to get out: minor bribe, minor influence, or picking a lock, etc.

Moderate, in which you're a known trouble maker, is tougher but still doable: they have guards who are much tougher to persuade, stronger locks, and a few patrols to make a break out harder. This can raise to moderate high, in which the persuade options are locked out and more patrols are stacked.

High is the real deal: there should be at least one major settlement that never falls to the other during the course of the game, and the dedicated prison goes here. For the Empire, this is the imperial version of BAF, which according to the NYT was the main US prison in Afghanistan. For the INS, this is one of those strong, deep support zones in a valley, where not even Imperial Dragons fly without fear of being shot down. These are the seats of the local-regional power, and this is where you'd really want the Imperial/INS help option for liberating the companion. Sneaking your companion out of here would be like trying to sneak through Camp McCaran in Vegas: possible, with the right disguises, skills, and routes, but large numbers of people who could spot you. Fighting your way to your companion would be like laying siege to The Fort: a massive, bloody battle even at higher levels. Even more suicidal against the Empire, because There Be Dragons.


So, when you get to medium-level arrests, it may take awhile for the companions to be rescued: a dedicated effort, and perhaps not a priority. But high-level arrest... that might involve either some morally questionable things (hostage taking), or you might not be getting that companion back for the rest of the game.

But hey, delegation!

(Insert Magic smile.)


---

And, otherwise, no, not too familiar with local myths. Might be something to read into in the near future, if only for flavor. If we let a little more Iraq slide into not-Afghanistan, I could see a fabled (and exaggerated) regional myth-identity of 'the once great empire at the crossroads of the world.'


Speaking of Iraq, thoughts on DLC-region being not-Baghdad/Kabul?

 

===

 

anon wrote...

 

It would be good if before you delegate a mission you actually brief the companion, setting the parameters for the mission (e.g. telling them to either "be aggressive" or "play it safe", which affects how likely the companion is to achieve the mission objective vs get caught or injured). You could also spend Influence to give the companion access to backup, weapons, intel, transport, a safe house, indirect fire support etc.

I think "mission failed, companion returned safely" should be the main bad outcome from delegation. The "rescue the companion" mission sounds awesome, but could be annoying if overused.

I also like the idea that, when you're a big enough pain in the ass, the faction that's captured your BFF/waifu really twists every bit of value they can out of it. Maybe your faction reputation could factor into it: if you're what FNV calls a Soft Hearted Devil in the Empire's eyes, you can do a deal, it's just going to cost you intel on the INS.

But if you're Vilified, the mission to "negotiate your companion's release" is really just a plot to get you physically in a certain place at a certain time.

Re the DLC being set in a city – sounds great (and a genuinely interesting change of setting). My reservation would just be that RPGs seem to be really, really bad at making cities feel like cities. Denerim, the Citadel wards, the Presidium, New Vegas itself, Megaton, Rivet City; none of them felt convincing to me. Maybe it's a hardware thing (although games like GTA and Battlefield carry off complex urban environments) which the new Xbox will be able to handle better.

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

I think feature creep would be the biggest concern for over-developing the delegation piece. A 'play it safe' vs 'be aggressive' makes sense, in that it could help schew your chances of the success and what not, but I don't see it being much deeper than that. Trading Influence for more fighters... maybe, but there'd have to be a cap.

But yeah, 'mission failed, back safe' would be the main outcome: same with most engagements IRL. I can see making at least one arrest mandatory towards the late game if you're really that hostile to people (say a quasi-scripted arrest event when the PC has to go somewhere alone), but it would be uncommon.

And I totally dig the 'cut a deal' sort of option, based on reputation. That would definitely be a reason to keep the Vegas-style popularity system, and could even be a late-game impetus for faction change by making you build up serious negative points with the other faction.



And spur of the moment thought: I've been struggling to think of how the INS might have a comparison to drone strikes, and think I figured it out. VBIEDs and suicide bombers. That seems obvious enough, but the likely lack of vehicles (because, really, drivable vehicles in a Fallout/Skyrim game pretty much ruin the flow) was a hinderance.

Instead, suicide bombers, and suicide merchant cows, make a bit more sense. In FNV, explosives were pretty dangerous when used by the enemy, even on lower difficulties. They weren't used often, and the risk of self-destruction was a reason against the type, but they were powerful. So I'm thinking, in traditional INS fashion, that we use some of those nameless NPCs and wandering merchants and what not, the type you never raise on eye towards when they aren't quest related or you don't want to buy something.

So when you get to the point that the INS want to try to off you, it comes in the form of a suicide bomber right in a populated area. The game spawns one of those anonymous merchants or NPCs who loiter around the entrance of one of those high-traffic areas, and when the player approaches they run up to the player and go 'boom' for massive damage. For a person-bomber, think those people who try to rush the gate of The Strip. For a animal-born IED, think of those merchants in FO3 who occasionally loiter around the entrance of the towns, and right as you go by to go in...


I think that'd give a bit of proper paranoia and distrust to the players, don't you?

 

===

 

anon wrote...

 

Love the "nameless NPC as deadly threat" mechanic. I was wondering how a paranoid player might deal with that, short of lethal force, and that reminded me of what I thought was a great and innovative mechanic in an old FPS called "SWAT CQB".

You played a cop and the addition was a "Challenge" button. So you sighted on a target and you could choose to either shoot – or Challenge. Choosing the latter, your cop would roar an order to surrender. There was some kind of logic going on under the hood so a civilian was likely to obey your command, and an armed criminal may or may not depending on if he'd been wounded, how many of his buddies were still alive, etc.

(Thinking about it, this game was a step along the path in my transition from Paragon to Renegade. I very quickly revised my ROE from "engage anyone who has been offered a chance to surrender, and subsequently refuses" to "engage anyone who is an armed threat".)

I've often thought that it's kind of immersion breaking how in video games everybody fights to the death. A Challenge mechanic could lead to foes surrendering after they've been bloodied a bit, which might feel more realistic, especially if the Challenges are varied and intimidating.

It would also give the player a weapon to use against the suicide NPCs. Crowd getting a bit too close for your liking? Draw your weapon and start screaming that the next whoreson you can reach loses his head. Of course there would be consequences for crying wolf.

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

I think a dedicated challenge mechanic would be a bit much for something built off the FNV engine, which I'm using as a baseline. I could see a basic escalation of force, though: pull out a weapon, and people either start backing away/cowering, or pull out their own. Fire a shot that hits no one, and some people back down, some people fire their own, and some people fire back. That seems a bit more measured and achievable than a challenge-interaction scenario.



I'm trying to think up a general plot outline along the lines of FNV, and I'm honestly drawing a bit of a blank past 'there's a war, join in.' FNV had the platinum chip as a hook, and the looming battle for Hoover Dam as the setting driver. Skyrim had an execution and dragon as the hook, and used the Dragon threatening to end the world to drive the plot (while the civil war was, well, meh). FO3 had the search for Father, which seamed into the Waters of Life.

Insurgency, though? It's one thing to give the Player the Tribal, whose general migrant-ness and lack of allegiances is a useful tool for the factions to take advantage of. But where's the player hook to get involved?

Musing off the top of my head, but the fact that we're in a fantasy setting could be used to help justify the player's lack of past/history in a more fantasy term. Like if the player was a Homonculus, or artificial human, more of a product than a person? That would generally work better in a character-centric narrative, though, which this couldn't be. Some magically-enscrolled warrior by a mercenary-slaver, seeking to sell an army to whichever faction offers more?

Those don't sit right with me. Your thoughts?

[Dean_the_Young]

And the story begins to take shape...

 

===

 

Insurgency. I said that I prefer the PC to be a "normal" tribal. I think the lack of player history within the setting (and awareness of the broader setting) is easily answered by what I imagine to be a typical insular and isolated nature of a tribe. My suggestion to you was to have events conspire to force the player to complete an introductory questline for *both* factions, ending with the player returned to his village with a helpful contact in each faction. Then to spring some calamity on the village that can only be solved with faction support, thus encouraging the player to run errands for one or both contacts.

That made me think of the idea of maintaining the player's home village as an important location throughout the game - kind of their own personal Megaton. I recalled an ancient RPG called "Midwinter II", in which the player was rewarded for completing missions by being given unique trophies – a rare piece of artwork, a well stocked wine cellar, a bundle of cash, etc. I thought it might be nice if the village were to receive unique upgrades as you passed through the faction questlines. I suggested water infrastructure and a school from the Empire, and pretended I couldn't think of anything the filthy INS could offer beyond stonings, and burning down the school. More wit! Ho ho!

That in turn reminded me of the banana republic simulator Tropico, and its mechanic of playing off the US against the USSR. If your faction relations are not balanced enough, there is a danger of the unfriendly faction deciding "enough is enough" and occupying Tropico (which ends the game). You mitigate against this by trying not to ****** off either superpower, or by becoming a client state of your favourite one. In this case you are immune to being occupied by the enemy, but you have to acquiesce to any demand the superpower makes of you.

You could rip that mechanic off, by having a chance of your home village being occupied by INS or Empire if you have annoyed them enough. (This needn't necessarily end the game, but you should lose access to the location.) My idea was that, just as in Tropico, you could ally the village fully with EMP or INS, which turns it into a stronghold the other won't attack – but that would lock you out of the independent warlord path.

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

Having a canonical home village is a thought. A bit unconventional, and possibly tricky: a big part of Bethesda-style RPGs is that there's usually no home to go back to. The thought of FO1 comes to mind, where you're off questing to save your home, but otherwise I'm at a loss for any other examples.

Biggest problem I'd see, for a certain extent of problem, is the question of how the player's choice of race/tribe might go. Simply palatte-swaping the home town doesn't seem a good reflection of different tribes/expectations, nor does it work well with 'foreigner' nationalities.


Now, on the other hand, having a 'neutral' town sort of quasi-adopt the PC at the start could make sense. Call it the Pashtun-esque code of honor (the player is a guest, and provided shelter and a new start), which leads to the tutorial phase. Player can accept the broadly sympathetic village (Goodsprings), which starts the story questline you propose, or they can not and raze the village/immediately go to the wastes, which ultimately leads you to being noticed by the powers that be and prompted to start picking a side. (In FNV, the point where you reach Vegas, which gets House/NCR/Legion all inviting you over.)


Now, as for the story lead-in...

Say Home Village takes you in, but is having problems. A series of problems with specific solutions or what not, which leads you to interact with both factions.

First problem is, oh, wild dogs attacking the animals. You can kill some, but there needs to be a permanent guard. So you're asked to go recruit the local Empire/INS fighters, who will do so in hopes of gaining influence over the town (which is neutral).

Then you have two village problems: one problem is getting the village fresh water, and another is the corrupt Local Government which is causing problems. You go to the Empire for the first, the INS for the second, in whichever order you want. Again, both factions want influence.

By this point, a meeting is called in which the pro-Empire and pro-INS factions are trying to win the argument. Whichever side you 'chose' twice seems to have the upper hand, and whichever side loses out is unhappy. This leads to a breakdown in negotiations, in which a small battle takes place between the INS and Empire. You can join in to determine the battle, or let the two sides duke it out (the one you sided with twice ultimately winning). The winner has a tentative hold on the town, but falls back when the villagers say 'thanks, but get out.' An inconclusive fight, in other words, that might get you reputation.

After the violence, the player is suggested to move on. Winning faction, liking you by default, gives you a recommendation to go that-a-way, and player eventually moves on for lack of missions to do. Village

Thoughts?

 

===

 

anon wrote...

 

My thoughts are that, as an outline, it's fine and perfectly workable. I'd enjoy playing it: I can almost see the scenes and the mission progression in my head.

Honestly, though, and depending what your actual objectives are with the project: I think you could afford to experiment a bit more. I might be guilty of projecting here, but it feels kind of like you're playing safe with the story element, holding back somehow. It's like you're approaching the plot from the perspective of a tabletop GM and not Joss Whedon.

One of the reasons Mass was so compelling to me was that it literally told the biggest story that universe was capable of telling. It answered the Fermi paradox by explaining that the Milky Way is a giant science experiment, and the creators were on their way to end it. Shepard's story was blatantly, obviously The Story of the setting.

Here's a question for you – and it's not intended to be a leading question because I don't have an answer for it, but I'm interested to see if this sparks anything at your end – what is the single biggest story that Insurgency is capable of telling?

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

The single biggest story that Insurgency would tell, and this is the crux of the finale, is 'how does an Empire leave?' Is it driven out? Does it leave on its own terms, from a position of strength? Is it forced to make uneasy compromises where your enemies are more reliable than your nominal allies? Or does it not leave at all, but double down and damn the consequences?

But, like I said, that's a story brought out by many smaller stories, and to me that's what a war like Afghanistan is: not a single act or play, but a series of interconnected smaller pieces. Every district is different, every group its own identity and nature. The most uniform thing in the country is the occupying power, itself a diverse alliance of peoples.

I've planned for epic stories before. Ambrosia Project, which is another one in which the player is rebeling against a food-control military junta, has story arcs and plot threads aplenty.

But Insurgency? It's very much in the mold of an Obsidian game akin to FNV. It may have companion quests and regional storylines/mission chains, but past the main story arc nothing as large as, say, any of the FNV DLC stories.

 

===

 

anon wrote...

I don't know, man, it just feels like there's something *thematic* missing somehow. I'm not criticising the work, I think it's really original, but I also think you've correctly identified that the hook to draw the player into the world isn't quite sharp enough yet.

Maybe it's not emotionally sharp enough? Maybe the PC could be faced with some kind of internal dilemma that mirrors the larger conflict? (Like could you work in some kind of light side/dark side mechanic?)

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

As a general rule, I don't think Obsidian games need that much of a narrative hook. They tend to stand on the strength of their world settings and encounters, not their plotlines or character arcs, a case of telling a story through tidbits around the world rather than a narrative roller coaster. By and large they just go with a small push for the core path, but leave the rest alone. Do you remember in FO3 how, if you went to just the story routes, you'd explore something like a fifth of the map?

So yeah, it needs something... but I don't think a thematic device (besides the general factionalism) is the cue as such. Some games just tell you to care: Fallout 1 had the 'save your vault' quest, for example. FNV expects you to care about following Benny.

I think the 'tutorial village = home' idea has some merit, even if it does kind of clash with the idea of a migrant of any ethnicity. It needs to be massaged, and I don't think the intro as such stands, but 'trying to look out for the broadly sympathetic village' could be an idea. Say that, after the events of the tutorial, the village becomes a no-go area that the main quest line pushes you to regain access to (by getting help/etc/etc).

Or, alternatively, we could wipe out the village. Say that, as part of that conflict in the tutorial, whoever you sided against comes by (in a mostly scripted fashion) and high-level forces destroy the place for siding with the enemy? Not-GIROA tank-beasts and Dragons attacking the INS garrison, or INS suicide bombers and poisoners and what not blowing up the bazaar and leadership buildings? Given the scripted nature of the sequence, not-GIROAcould push you one way down the map while INS pushes you another.

Then the post-tutorial early portion could be put in terms of finding out who razed the sympathetic village. Either an INS leader, or someone within the empire (or, more likely, a corrupt not-GIROA) who pulled the strings and issued the orders. Player is given a general revenge motive and initial bias for the investigation (which spans multiple areas), but obviously the player doesn't have to care and can ultimately just side with one faction or the other regardless as they see more of the good/bad.


This could feed into the 'be a warlord/build a village' idea, where as well as seeking revenge you can seek to rebuild the village/make it your own. Your followers fill some of the houses when not in your employ, you find and recruit people to be merchants/smiths/spies/etc., and overall you can build it into your own village/power base, while trying to get supplies/support from the factions. Say the INS help you by building into the mountains better, while Empire gets you the snazzy stuff, while not-GIROA gets you more contacts/people/etc.

How's that for a Bethesda-hook?

 

===

 

anon wrote...

 

Yes, yes, YES on the corrupt local politician. You haven't realised what a great idea this is.

Consider disassociating him from not-GIROA and making him a minor local warlord in the start area (imagine him being on the same "independent warlord" path as the PC can go on, except he's thoroughly and unambiguously black hat evil).

Bring his story to the front, so the tutorial isn't even about INS or the Empire. It's about the PC being absolutely *fucked over* by this man or this man's forces.

The player escapes and is taken in at Friendly Village (maybe because he was assisted in his escape by Friendly Villager, who gives the PC directions to his home). They shelter the PC from Evil Warlord's forces who come through looking for him (like the Powder Gangers quest, except this time you *are* Ringo.)

The first act of the MQ is about you taking revenge on Evil Warlord. Here's the thing: you can't actually *do* anything about him unless you enlist the help of either the Empire or the INS. So in this questline, the PC is actually exploring and contrasting the way the two factions attack the same problem, and ultimately must choose one ideology as the correct way to solve this problem.

This ties in with your overall thematic question, How does an Empire leave, and also adds a new layer for the player to consider: is an Empire good or bad for the colonised?

I'm not sure I explained my thoughts at all well. :-/

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

Well, I think the enthusiasm is there. :-p

There's an acronym I've seen thrown around, GINO: GIROA In Name Only. It refers to that sort of GIROA official who is double-dealing with INS, playing both sides off each other. When that person is a local leader of influence, at times that person is tolerated by both sides because they're useful enough to tolerate. This could definitely work for our person... and in fact, will be his name going forward. GINO.

I think 'Corrupt Politician' fills the mindset better than 'Evil Warlord', considering how few outright warlords there are in Afghanistan right now, but personal power base he shall have. I don't think it should be too personal, though: the Migrant (being that sort of seemingly irrelevant person-type) should be a victim of circumstance, a casual collateral damage, rather than overly personal. Benny was personal: the idea of destroying the village (and, by association, you) should make the Corrupt Politician a matter of Justice, rather than just revenge.


So say the Corrupt Politician is the ultimate nemisis regardless. Intro could be something like this.

The migrant wakes up in Friendly Village, having been found and taken in after being found collapsed from sun stroke while presumably traveling across the Conveniently Edge of the Map Desert. This desert to Who Cares is a major natural boundary, and the reasons why the Migrant was crossing it are left up to the player. Possible implication that the Migrant's caravan was attacked by raiders (who implicitly work for GINO). GINO in a feud with the village for standing in his way). At the same time, Friendly Village might be so friendly it keeps its doors open to everyone, angering both sides who want it to choose a side.

The player, after the stat roll, can either say deuces and make for the world map, or help around the village. Or maybe not: I'm torn on a mandatory tutorial plot. But let's play it like it's mandatory. Maybe the Pashtun Code of Honor is now magical, and the player is compelled by Deep Magics to do three favors in exchange for the saved life.

Three favors, which push you towards interacting with the faction representatives, hit the basic mechanics. Combat is fighting some GINO thugs, done with the INS. Then there's getting supplies for the village, teaching the village-management mechanic: call that not-GIROA.

The third and final favor is removing the corrupt/oppressive corrupt representative of not-GIROA, who is working for GINO and extorting the village with 'taxes'. You need the INS or Empire's help for this to get access to his compound, and doing so is the 'who you sided with first' decision. Naturally, the manner of the take down is representative of the faction: the INS is more lethal justice/execution, while the Empire is arresting.

After you remove his agent, GINO is pissed: at you, a bit, but also the faction you chose and also Friendly Village. For the Village, it's the last straw, and GINO pulls strings/urges the opposite faction to 'save the village', Vietnam style.

Overwhelming attack, last survivors tell you he's responsible, Main Story start. Player can seek revenge on him, on the attacking faction, or just move on as they choose.


Thoughts?
 

[Dean_the_Young]

And then I started working on the local insurgents and culture of not-Afghanistan...

 

===

 

So I've been thinking the INS are a bit too weak. At least, they don't have a thematic balance to counter the Empire: right now they have suicide bombers, but nothing else worth noting.

I think I'd play the idea of 'sons of the Earth', and give the INS some earth-related magics and powers. Empire's strength lies in the magic-tech and skies, while INS survive by hiding in the Earth.

In reality, this is in terms of burying caches, mountain caves, hidden cellars, spider holes, and so on. Oh, and mud/stone huts and buildings. In Insurgency, these are because of Earth magic/themology. An Earth-religion of sorts, VERY loosely analogous to the role of Islam, that is established in the land. It may not be uniquely divine, but it's their cultural focus.

In effect, while the Empire builds up and out, the INS build down and in. Very impressive cave systems, beautiful clay pottery, etc. Earth shaping is the local national talent, and while most attempts are crude and poor (hence the village huts), the skilled and gifted can make cathedrals underground, or INS bases and outposts. As magical attacks, this can be done to produce earth quakes... though the Empire's own magics can counter this in fortified/prepared areas.


This Earth theme can also give the INS a counterpart to the Imperial dragon: the Earth Beast. What kind of beast, I don't know. Could be a magic mole, or a thresher maw, or giant worker ants. Something significant and restricted enough to not-Afghanistan that the Empire doesn't really have the same in any significant number. These could be the real work horse for INS base construction, able to dig tunnels underground and, while nowhere near as powerful as Dragons, able to help the hiding and/or attacks of the INS. If a colony of Earth Beasts digs up around you, they might as well be a dragon.

These can also be roughly thought of as the heavy weapons of the INS: powerful when used carefully, albeit vulnerable to destruction when found. Used against ground forces, not dragons. This can also open up multiple types of beasts: mole-ants are the 'HMG' caliber beasts, while giant worms/thresher maws are more akin to super-heavy machine guns.



These counterpart beasts could be a cornerstone of the INS's ability to utterly destroy an area like Friendly Village. So, in the 'village is razed' scene, if it was the Empire/not-GIROA you would see tank-beasts and dragons blasting and razing the village. If it's the INS, you see a thresher maw tearing into the village, while digger ants are tearing into the people. Either way, the village is ruined and the people dead.





I like this Earth-theme, though I admit it needs some refinement.

An Earth patriarchal religion: say one that says the bones of the land are masculine, and the top soil feminine... (insert joke about fertilizing the soil by putting your seed in).

Like I said, loose analogy for Islam at most. But it could be useful.

 

===

 

I also wrote...

 

Holy ****.

When the sun came up today, something kind of creepy happened: I couldn't see the mountains. Or rather, of tall he mountains (and I'm talking easily 5km and higher all around), I could only see the very closest ridge line and the mountain the sun was silhouetting as it rose. Which, as I rode in, reminded me of a video game only generating objects as you got closer.

This afternoon, when I woke up and stepped out, I couldn't even see those. And this is a 'good day', as in we are not having a sandstorm.

Sandstorms are going to have to come in the game some how. Probably under a 'INS take advantage/summon the djinn to generate them' thing, with it being a a time where enemies/earth beasts pop up around the target for a mass attack.



And speaking of sand and djinn and earth beasts, I've more thoughts on them. I definitely like the concept.

So a patriarchial Earth religion of sorts fits the not-Afghanistan as a basis for cultural conservatism and shared differences. I could even speculate and suggest that while not-Afghanistan is largely monotheistic in their approach (worshiping only the Earth-father), the Empire is polytheistic/largely secular in practice (people can worship anyone or no one), which gives some weight to feelings of 'they don't respect our god' cultural difference.

Earth-mending is the quasi-magical, quasi-divine art of Earth movement and crafting. I won't say it's Earthbending from Avatar: The Last Airbender, not in terms of combat, but the idea of building and shaping structures from the earth is a real thing. It ranges from shoddy but functional (stone huts) to the magnificent (wonders like the equivalent to the Buddhist statues). It's a ancient tradition of the locals, and part of the culture.

The reason the country seems so primitive despite such abilities can/should be traced back to the not-Soviet invasion. Not-Afghanistan may never have been rich, but the war, invasion, and occupation knocked it flat. Almost all the great Earth-menders were destroyed, and the not-Soviets destroyed almost all the great monuments and works during the occupation in their war.

Now, only a handful of the former masters remain, many of them scattered. The new generation, having lost the old arts, is able to make mud huts and crude tunnels and not much else. These Earth-menders are still highly regarded by the locals/INS, but viewed with disdain/indifference by the mages of the Empire (who can create better, prettier, stronger buildings with other magics).



Obviously, this can/should lead into a mission in which 'passing down the skills to the next generation' is a theme. Say a Master Earth-mender is opening up a class to teach students his skills before he dies. Player role is to help support this, or not, with the epilogue effect being that the old skills begin to return slowly if the classes succede.

Maybe, for one of those seemingly counter-intuitive twists that goes on in modern wars, the Master Mender is actually aligned with the Empire (who, while not crazy about it, see no reason to stop it and support it as one of those popular legitimacy measures). Some INS, seeing the Master Mender as a traitor for teaching the Empire's stooges, would kill the mender for backing the wrong side (sort of like the killing of moderate/not-extreme-enough clerics), even when losing the ancient arts.

This could also be drawn to/tied into the historical event of the Taliban destroying the Afghan Buddha statues, robbing future generations of their own heritage. This could be done if, say, the Master Mender has earth-mended statues of all the gods (objects for the player to see).


Alternatively, that event could be a mission of its own: ancient Earth-mended statues of all the Gods, not just the Earth Father, back from a time when not-Afghanistan wasn't as monotheistic as its modern adherents would like everyone to believe. Very much in the vein of the Islamists who took Timbuktu and tried to destroy ancient islamist documents on laws and philosophy and generally showing how not-historically accurate they were in their depictions of Islam.

Saving the statues, if you did do that (as opposed to INS fame/influence/resources if you help destroy them) would also depend on the finale for how long that preservation lasts. In more INS-victory (or even Imperial Crackdown player INS path), the statues might still be destroyed later, unless you convince the locals/INS to spare them. Siding with the Empire/not-GIROA, however, sees them preserved as heritage sites.

This would be a good place to represent the Empire not with a military force, but civilian agencies analogous to the special-interest groups and NGOs that operate in Afghanistan. 'Concerned Imperials', rather than the imperial military, who need your help because they lack the strength/support to protect these cultural treasures on their own.

[Dean_the_Young]

anon wrote...

 

GINO: the thing I was pushing towards in my breathless and incoherent screed was actually something different from what you're describing (in my defence, incoherence is my normal state). I was imagining more a kind of DA2 style "first act" with deposing him as the climax.

The idea that leapt out at me, back when he was still called not-GIROA, was the idea of using *both* factions during the first act. Not even making them exclusive, not even actually making them that bothered about the migrant or his adoptive village (if GINO is not worth the trouble of reining in, the people he's oppressing sure aren't worth liberating). It's only *after* the migrant does something noteworthy (i.e. topples GINO) that the powers take an interest.

I think that one of the problems Skyrim presented was that it was very easy to never have a friendly encounter with the faction you didn't side with during the Helgen escape. Same for FNV: by the time you're forced to meet Caesar, he's already the enemy to most of the player base. No pithy monologue on Hegelian dialectic can overcome that. So I was thinking that, since this is a game about factions, it might be nice if the PC can dip in and out of each one for a while, without feeling like he's locking out a questline.

The thing that really excited me, though, was the idea of using these early quests as a way to explore the differences between Empire and Insurgency. Only you can really elucidate what they are, but imagine if in Mass Effect the early missions required you to pick either Council or Cerberus support to resolve them. Imagine, also, that in some circumstances the Council approach was the better option, in others only Cerberus could get the job done. The player would have a much better feel for what the factions are really about, and thus could take better informed choices during the mid- and end-game.

I'm talking about using the missions to explore the fundamental conflict in the setting by asking the player to choose *which faction is right in this instance* rather than *which faction did I join at the beginning*.

Special bonus thought: love the INS ground beasts. Are ground worms too similar to sky worms, or is there meaning in there somewhere?

I get that dragons are helis, but what are the ground beasts supposed to represent? Do the RL INS have anything equivalent? Maybe their ideology, which can't physically be destroyed? If the ground beasts are an analogy for that, maybe instead of being individual creatures they should all be tentacles of some vast, awful subterranean creature. Empire can blast tentacles that crawl up to the surface, but more always grow back. I'm thinking along the lines of a certain Lovecraftian deity, but the list of Great Old Ones at Wikipedia served no purpose beyond terrifying me. Ia! Ia!

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

I see your point about the 'not choosing a side at the beginning', and I'm interested, just trying to deliberate on how to do it. Rather than give the player a real 'side with this faction' at the start, with the other being the attacker, perhaps you're thinking the tutorial should give a good side for both/all three factions, without choosing a side? I could sort of see that. And then, rather than have just one faction be complicit in the end of Friendly Village, the prologue-climax could be both Dragons AND Earth Beasts destroying the village, from the top and below, due to GINO. Then the crux of the first story act becomes investigating why both factions aligned, realizing they didn't, and hunting GINO. The resolution of GINO gathering some attention as to your ability to act and make a difference without relying on a major faction, thus making the major factions interested.

So, in other words:

-Friendly village finds heat-stroke Migrant, takes him/her in. Use Deep Magics to revive/bring back to life.

-Migrant is bound by Deep Magics to pay three favors for the saved life. Cue tutorial side quests: enter the INS (who provide physical security: take out GINO thugs), the Empire (who provide material security: provide water/material that GINO is blockading), and the NGIROA (Who provide... national unity? Who open up trade that GINO is preventing via corruption. Alternatively, Migrant can profit from corruption). Regardless, tutorial quests introduce dominant themes of the major factions.

-Migrant completes three quests, with generally positive interaction between major factions.

-GINO, pissed off, pulls strings within INS/NGIROA/Empire to wipe out Friendly Village with ground beasts/land beasts/dragons. Makes no sense to the victims, and Migrant survives.

-As last Deep Magic favor, Migrant is tasked to find out what happened and punish the ones responsible. End Prologue.

Prologue corresponds roughly to the tutorial phase of FNV or Skyrim.


Act 1 corresponds to the Hunt for Benny in FNV. Like in FNV, it is technically skippable for players not interested in the main story but want to explore the world.


For the story-intended, akin to the 'clue for Benny' quests-

-Act 1: investigating leads into complicity of all major factions. Factions are generally unaware/confused by what happened as well, and have various willingness to cooperate. Both factions need to have a 'hostile' investigation route, for if you've already pissed them out. This would focus on disguises/spies/using the opposing faction/NGIROA to seize/interrogate the persons of interest. Basically, the critical path must always be able to be completed, regardless of your reputation: this might mean hacking solutions are a necessity. (You can do a favor for the Empire's Dragon Keeper, you can use local national informants, or you can steal the record book that shows the Empire did not send dragons.)

-These investigation quests allow the neutral-ish player to have more positive interaction with the factions, or allow a 'in this case' kind of solution to the delimma of how to get the clues. Getting the 'who summoned the Earth Beasts' from the INS could involve helping the INS plan/execute a ground beast ambush on some people, or help the Empire/GIRoA make an arrest.

-Migrant learns that GINO is responsible, and that this was his attempt at securing his power in the region/discrediting the Empire and the INS by making people blame them. GINO is holed up in a fortress, and it's up to Migrant to bring him down.

-Migrant brings GINO down. This can be done via combat (kill him) or non-combat (expose/discredit him). Combat gets you fame for breaking into a fortress to kill him in his lair. Exposing gets you fame for a sneak-theif/master of spies to both get the information and spread it around.

-GINO is a non-factor, and INS and Empire send representatives to pardon/recruit you to their cause. The factions will give you the story chain of missions for that faction.


For the sort of people who skip Benny and go straight to Vegas and never bother with him (the kind of people who just go ahead and win the civil war in Skyrim before playing the first story mission)-


-Person builds positive reputation with a major faction/builds their own power base. Once in a position of significant influence/approval, they get a series of high-approval missions (not necessarily story related) as a 'prove commitment' measure.

-The key mission is 'GINO obstructs us, take him down.' Cue player take down.

-GINO is a non-factor. Faction that sent you in treats it like it was their idea all along: other faction sends a messanger asking you to consider swapping sides.

Enter Act 2.




(Which is... bleh. Dunno.)
 

 

===

 

I also wrote...

 

Ground beasts really just served as a counter-component to the INS: not necessarily equal, but an equivalent uniqueness. If they have any IRL equivalent, I'd say it's more of the historic tendency/utility of INS hiding in the ground/hiding things in the ground as a way of both protecting themselves and hurting the enemy.

In terms of protection, the countless spider holes, tunnels, rat holes, and so on that INS effectively build and maintain have been a key refuge for INS in modern and old insurgencies. Secret tunnels, or the Vietnam NVA bunkers. Even the idea of a bunker itself, whether large facilities or caves/holes in the mountains. Taking shelter in the Earth is as old as warfare, and would fit nicely with the earth-religion theme.

In terms of offence, sometimes the earth can be our greatest danger. Mud slides, earthquakes, those are big things, acts of god... but booby traps are much more relevant. IEDs buried in the roads, stake-pits hidden in the jungle floor. A sudden, deadly surprise from beneath our feet.


I like the idea of multiple types of ground beasts for those different sorts of themes. Non-aggressive tunnelers, small deadly things, or huge big things. Magic rabbits, giant (or at least large) worms, and mega-tentacles?

Probably not the last one. The Insurgency-INS might see the divine in their earth monsters, but I don't think there should actually be a mega-monster or sort at their beck and call. Actual divinity should be subject to debate and skepticism, me thinks, or else secularism makes no sense.



As for dominant themes of the factions...

I'll admit, though, I'm finding myself highly biased against the NGIROA. I so rarely see or hear anything good about them that I find myself buying into the common US/INS perspective of irreedemable corruption and incompetence. Even if I know it's not that stark, and that the INS have their own competence/corruption issues, NGIROA needs some virtues despite its plentiful warts. Being middling between Empire and INS social views is a start, but not enough.


The Empire is pretty easy: Social Liberalism/Progressivism, a lack of respect for tradition, and a strong reputation for quality/effectiveness without the numbers to dominate. The least casually corrupt of the factions, but with enough at the top (pragmatists making dirty deals with reality) and bottom (bad eggs) to mar it from time to time. A key and not-quite universal flaw is cultural chauvinism: 'we're more enlightened' on the social aspects, 'they're incompetent/corrupt and need us to win it for them' within the ranks towards NGIROA, and Imperial dismissal against the INS.

I think that the Empire (and, IRL, the ISAF coalition) is the most morally sound of the factions... but we're not perfect, and at the end of the day we don't live here. Not really.



INS have the two faces: what they'd like to be seen as, and what they also are. Publicly they decry corruption, promote social stability and physical safety at the lowest level, and promote social conservatism for a good and safe life. Plus, a code of honor that, for those who live by it, can be quite admirable. There's also the historic grievances about the war, which are incredibly valid. On the other hand... the limited corruption is also a result of limited opportunities, and they are quite happy (at least at lower levels) to encourage/take advantage of corruption, and abuse their own powers. There's also the whole mass intimidation tactics, brutal and severe justice, general intolerance for minorities and other religions, and tolerance of mass civilian casualties to take out just a few imperials. You could say 'good isn't nice', but there's so much criminal collusion that the goodness is very debatable.

Without buying into the propaganda too much, the INS are people with very valid grievances and more than just token virtues or good people amongst them... but they're also involved, support, or tolerate some Very Bad Things.





NGIROA... well, social moderation is there. Balanced between Imperial influences (and the need for their support) vs. cultural traditionalism, NGIROA could be more of a 'let everyone believe what they want as long as they don't push it on others.' That's the Empire in theory, without conceding that the Empire's world view is right (which Imperials would normally push further). Also, sharing on the Empire's virtues, an acceptance of minorities without feeling a need to stomp them. A sense of national identity could also be a thing: whereas the Empire sees it as 'future vassal/client peoples', and the INS are 'we are all the children of the Earth, whether you want to be or not', NGIROA can be more of a 'we are the many peoples of the land, in all our different ways.' Freedom of identity/sub-culture, freedom of belief, and even a certain sense of social mobility (in that there is no established dominant order, unlike the Empire or INS).

Corruption is the killer flaw. It mars the reputation, the effectivness, and the trustworthiness as friends and foes. Still, even that I would want to temper with reason and context. In Afghanistan, corruption is often a function of patronage and building alliances: there's a concept called 'functional corruption' which basically goes 'I steal from the public purse, and then spend personal money to support the poor.' There's skimming and personal investment, yes, but there's also a sort of trickle-down effect that builds the local influence to make deals. There's also the pragmatic necessity angle: when the public salary is barely meeting or even below the cost of living, corruption is a means of supporting not only one's self, but also the family. Or the long-term view: if the Empire is leaving, and the INS are going to stay, then if you doubt the existence/viability of NGIROA after the Empire leaves you would have to be positively stupid to not try and cut a deal with the INS. It's not a matter of treason, or even just self-interest: it's protecting your family into the future, when they might otherwise be targets of the INS.

(And god, if that's not a quest of some sort, of justice on a INS collaborator fearing for his family, that's a criminal missed opportunity.)

NGIROA needs work. Corruption is real. The virtues can be hard to appreciate, since in some respects they seem enforced by the Empire by association. But I think part of the player's role can be to improve NGIROA: by giving it a credibility (by success, by fighting corruption, etc.) that makes other people believe it can succede, and so not doom it by never giving it a chance.
 

 

===

 

anon wrote...

 

Making not-GIROA succeed is a fascinating topic. Do you think it could be done in real Afghanistan? Is that what's missing from the picture, a better Karzai? Or does some other element need to be introduced, that would differentiate not-Afghan from real-Afghan?

Maybe the trouble you're having in writing GIROA as a solution is because you the author are not buying into GIROA in the real world.

Your talk of INS actually makes me think of the part Caesar's Legion were supposed to play in the ideological battle for the Mojave (although I think it wasn't executed incredibly well). If you can stomach the methods, Pax Romana has a lot going for it. Can we say the same about Pax Talibana?

I'm starting to think that ground beasts suddenly erupting from the earth are actually a better IED analogue than your earlier idea of exploding people/cattle. Especially if they're summoned by a ritual that analogises the IED cycle. Given the Earth worship, I want to suggest that INS are actually worshipping the ground beasts, but I'm only thinking that because of the opportunity for cool, Cthonian imagery in their buried temples – it's not a comment on Islam, which it might get taken for.

Now, draft 2 of GINO – you called it bleh, but I think this is really exciting work. It seems to pull the player into exploring the factions in a much more natural way, and in terms of the story arc it just seems to draw the Migrant to the attention of the region's power players in a much more organic and real way than your first draft. Also, once the migrant has deposed GINO, he should seize Gino's lair as his own. This could be the persistent base we've spoken about (instead of the friendly village). Imagine a more customisable version of the Lucky 38, with all kinds of snazzy upgrades to soak up the Migrant's cash and influence.

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

You got it in one in your second paragraph. I'm a bit fatalistic and hopelessly biased about GIROA's abilities to support itself, but then that's me not buying into it and being a bit more influenced by various other perspectives. It's not that it was inherently doomed: I think if we had focused more in the early years of treating it like we are now, forcing responsibility on the security forces, things could have been different. And a dozen other things, of course. But really, governments (like any group effort) will hold together and succede if everyone believes they will succede, but inevitably fall apart if everyone thinks they'll fall.

I think GIROA will fall. NGIROA in not-Afghanistan, however, doesn't have to be like that. It could be like some of those other insurgencies we're drawing inspiration from. Including, for example, Iraq: US forces gone and still standing. I think not-GIROA will need to take some influences from Iraq, or else simply take its own thematic direction.

Now, regarding Pax Romana vs Pax Taliban... I think Pax Taliban had more going for it than Caesar's Pax Romana (which is pretty far away from the historical Roman civilization and Roman Peace). Caesar is an expansionist centralized dictatorship with no other power structures, while the Taliban government, as bad as it could be, was still rather weak, limited by local influences and leaders, and pretty self-absorbed. It just tolerated bad people.



Ground beasts IEDs... I can see it. I still want 'conventional' explosives for combat purposes, obviously, but I can see supplanting IEDs more and more with earth beast summonings. Especially if they had some human cost. Blood letting? I don't want to use human sacrifice lightly, but a substitute for 'suicide bomber' could be 'human sacrifice', in which the sacrifice is used to summon a earth beast worm, ala thresher maw, which does major collateral damage in a brief time before being killed/retreating under ground. That would definitely make it an analog to, say, Wraith attacks.

The GBIEDs could be summoned by ritual, involve runes/catalyst objects placed on the ground, and a certain amount of blood, human or otherwise? Human blood being potent, but generally avoided? 'Small' IEDs would be animals or just a pinch of blood, and get smaller beasts accordingly. Summoned Earth Beasts tend to have a time limit associated with how long they can be brought above ground, and if they aren't killed they retreat shortly.



GINO bleh... the bleh was actually more about 'what should Act 2 be about' rather than GINO. I think that part is solid enough. I guess FNV/Skyrim have a basic enough 'go to major population areas and win fights for your faction' selection, but that doesn't seem enough... and if you went neutral and flip-flopped between the two, the critical path wouldn't be great either.

I can't really put it well, but there needs to be something decisive to work towards for the end-game. Vegas had the Dam, which everything was centered around capturing. Skyrim had the Dragons as the common threat. But Insurgency? What's the big thing everyone knows is coming?

Maybe something political/spectacular: the Tet Offensive everyone knows is coming, to spoil the visit of the Empire's representatives of deciding whether/how the Empire should stay in the country?



As for taking GINO's fortress... hm. I was kinda hooked on the idea of rebuilding Friendly Village, but GINO's fortress makes sense in its own right. A base to expand from, rather than build up (which is probably better). You start with a basic compound, maybe like a district center, and you build out and up and all that until you have a local bastion on... some strategic terrain. Because it does deserve to have captured GINO's interest for a reason. Metal mines? Water source? Dragon Hatchery?

Hm. I'll muse on it more, but the idea of being able to resource-farm has always interested me in a Bethesda style game. Make your home investment start paying you back.

 

===

 

anon wrote...

 

Hmm, I dunno; I actually think painting not-GIROA as unfeasible might be the more interesting path. To me, one of the tragedies about the setting is that the Empire *is leaving* before not-GIROA is ready to stand alone. Given that the big story question is "how does an Empire leave" I think that having a stable and effective GIROA ready to take over might be too perfect an option.

I'm loving ground beast IED, including the blood sacrifice element. A way you could visually express the limited time they can spend above ground could be to have them smoulder and burn when exposed to sunlight. (I think the fewer things you have to explain in codex or dialogue the better.)

Not sure how you'd rein them in at night, though. Maybe they can spend longer above ground in starlight.

Could the decisive event be an Imperial deadline for withdrawal (or ending combat operations)? More like working towards the Fall of Saigon than Tet?

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

Too perfect? I was concerned with not plausible enough: unless the NGIROA went the way of Iraq (relative stability based on a powerful centralized government and security forces, mixed with a change of popular willingness to continue engaging in the INS ala Anbar Awakening), I was afraid that it wouldn't be plausible enough.

A more Afghanistan-style NGIROA, to me, is one that of a weak government, too weak to effectively oppress, that exists by virtue of enough of the local leaders buying into it that they're not interested in continuing the Insurgency. Die hards remain, and a certain level of violence becomes accepted, but the security apparatus and local leaders are enough to keep it contained. This obviously would require the patronage network to expand, compromises be made, and a certain level of effectiveness (and the reduction of corruption that sabotages these).

A dis-United States, with a nominal central authority with an army but primarily driven at the local level, rather than an effective state. A peace where most people are content to leave others alone as long as they're left alone: the INS-leaning areas are free to be as conservative as they like, while liberal areas can be more liberal, and the NGIROA government doesn't really care as long as you don't stir up enough trouble that they have to intervene. (Because, struggling as they are to stay in power, they don't have the desire to intervene.) Closer to post-Gaddafi Syria, if anything.


NGIROA being unfeasible is definitely something a lot of people would believe, in game and out, but then again you have the culturally arrogant Imperialists on one hand and the more-than-slightly-biased INS on the other hand pushing that. Plus, a NGIROA path that is an automatic 'fail' wouldn't interest many people, myself included.



GBIEDs at night could simply leave after a somewhat longer period... but also be less aggressive. I think the fact that they have to be compelled to the surface in the first place is basis enough for them eventually drawing back down (if you don't kill them first).


Fall of Saigon rather than Tet... needs something more, but that might be something to combine. Afghanistan recently had its 'officially in charge of security' ceremony in Kabul, which you might have seen in the news. There was a VBIED in the green zone, which while bad was hardly devastating.

Instead, we could have a super-uber version of the NCR President visit to Hoover Dam, with more than just an assassination planned. The Empire is planning a big hand-over ceremony to NGIROA to mark the start of the withdrawal, but the INS want to spoil it with a huge offensive, to show that they 'ran the Empire out.' Divisions within the INS argue between attacking NGIROA to capture the territory as the Empire withdraws, or to attack the Empire as well. Attacking the Empire would entail killing Super Important Imperials: the Imperial General committed to withdrawal, but also maybe the Empress's brother/high minister.

Obviously, the overkill path sparks the Empire to retaliate and re-occupy in full, which is a Bad Thing.

Needs some work on the execution for the different paths, but 'attacking just as the Empire retreats to throw them out' has a certain narrative to it. Not necessarily wise... but then, people rarely are.

 

===

 

anon wrote...

 

Re the plot: like your ideas. To spark some thoughts, not necessarily because this is a developed idea, but a thought that occurred to me was to let the factions do some of the thinking for you. By this, I mean, if you set the Imperial timeline and then think about how INS might exploit that, and how not-CENTCOM might exploit that, and how NGIROA might exploit that, and then work out how these four paths will intertwine and react against one another, you might end up with something more sophisticated than "big fight at the Hoover Dam".

I say this a lot when I'm writing to you, but I'm not sure I explained that *at all*, let alone explained it well. I guess I mean to try writing from the characters's perspective. Imagine yourself as the INS leader blessed with exact knowledge of when the Empire plans to declare victory and bug out – how would that person achieve victory? How could the migrant then fit into/mess up his plans?

 

===

 

I wrote...

I think part of the breakdown would be that Insurgencies, by and large, don't make grand offenses when the occupying power is already leaving. If they had the ability to, they generally wouldn't be the insurgency. Of course, 'high profile attack' doesn't make much a dramatic crescendo for a game.

I think, instead of a deliberate withdrawal date, the 'impending event' is some sort of Inspection Tour by the Empress's representative. But, since everyone knows the Empress's intentions, people read through the lines and expect/suspect that this will be the 'laters' speech... though there's enough uncertainty that it drives speculation.

So the INS, wanting to convince the Empire to leave sooner rather than later, launch their offensive.

Tet Offensive finale back, though the extent and ambitions and success of it are what the player can influence (or not).

[Dean_the_Young]

anon wrote...

 

Insurgency is sounding quite developed. Have you thought much about art style? Is the world going to look like Afghan? What about the faction armours?

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

By and large, I think of it as a Fallout: Vegas reskin. And not just because Afghanistan looks a like lot Nevada. (And I don't just mean in terms of the game: the game terrain actually looks a lot like Nevada from a stand-off distance, and I've driven across the damn desert a few times.) Obviously it wouldn't be the post-apocalyptia and sci-fi of Fallout, what with dragons and sorcery and all that. But it would have strong mechanical and aescetic parallels.


The Empire would wear magically-enhanced armor, something like a cross between actual ISAF uniforms and Roman armor (cause, as far as western empires go, Rome is as iconic as it gets). Lots of cloth with 'spells woven within', and lighter-looking than pure-metal knights (which, if they exist, would be like power armor). Obviously the types should vary, but there should be an aesthetic connection between the Empire and NATO forces.

(Plus, simply because they are bad ass from a perspective, I want helicopter helmets and armor. That **** isn't as thick as the ground guy stuff, but those helmets are fricken terrifying.)


The INS would be wearing very Afghani-style clothing: robes, turbans, and... sneakers. Oh god, the sneakers. You've never seen the difference between a NATO soldier and an Insurgent until you've seen an insurgent sitting on an anti-aircraft HMG using sneakers to press the pedals.

(I kinda want to make Not-Afghanistan the world exporter of sneakers, it's so hilarious.) More advanced INS take bits and pieces of armor or fallen Empire equipment, but by and large their 'armor' will have more to do with the earth-connection than mage-tech. I could see them being the predominate earth/metal armor users for some of their high-level people.




Related to uniforms, and based off an encounter I had...

The Empire is going to have a cat-race vassal-ally for night ops. Black, humanoid, but most of all, glowing green eyes.

Why?

Because I had a surreal encounter at the midnight chow line on a dark, moonless night. We were lined up, and for once no one had their flashlights on. The person infront of me started talking to me without turning around, so I turned to face him...

...and was met with a glowing, green pair of cat eyes. And they weren't just stationary: they were moving, head shifting side to side, and in the darkness I saw a silhouette of jaw.

I was like 'it's real!' And then my mind and night vision caught up.


See, 'cat eyes' are what we call the little glow-in-the-dark straps that you wear on your helmet. It's basically so that people walking behind you in the dark can see you stop... or not see you, if you happen to fall down a tree/hole/hill. (I've done all three.)

And the jaw? That was the neck protector covering the back of the guy's neck. There's a little gap between the helmet and the neck protector, which looked like the mouth in the dark.


But it was seriously bad ass, especially when you could see humanoid silouetts in the dark with the cat eyes where eyes could be. And now the Empire has a vassal-ally who works best at night. Though they might need something to cover up the glow at night...

You know what that would be?

Oakleys sunglasses.

(Oakleys are the quasi-official US-deployment sunglasses you see troops wearing 90% of the time. Plus, can you hear the song 'I wear my sunglasses at night'?)
 

===

 

anon wrote...

 

I love your cat warriors idea. The world you're building is taking on some real depth, you know. It's kind of amusing, by the way, that you're fighting a war in one of the most exotic places on earth and you're still dreaming of the fantastic.

In terms of the factions, I'm kind of concerned that INS seems to have the most gravitational pull. NGIROA we've discussed, but is Empire attractive enough to side with yet, in your opinion? Do you need to throw in some more incentives for supporting the Empress?

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

With the idea of working with NGIROA as a patronage network, in which 'victory' is brokering the deals to make people tolerate/support it, I'm fairly comfortable with the factions now. I think they have a balance, and individually you can always find things that balance them out internally as well.



NGIROA's primary sin is corruption and ineffectiveness, but it's primary virtue is independence and alliances. The ineffectiveness can be improved upon by the player (much like the NCR in FNV), while corruption can be both a bane or a virtue. By spreading the patronage network and soliciting buy in, you can ultimately end up with 'functional corruption' as a system of compromises and agreements that benefit more people. It's good old fashioned horse trading, from a different direction, and while there are obvious people who are left out... there is also a (potentially) relatively coercion-free environment that won't (can't) enforce one set of views on everyone.


The INS primary virtue is cultural tradition, independence, and a claim of incorruptibility... but their sins are brutality, ignorance, and hypocrisy. INS propoganda may claim otherwise, but the same sort of wheeling, dealing, and self-service has applied to them when they are in a position to demand it. Extortion, death threats, and the ever so popular acid in the face of women who disagree with them... these are serious enough sins that they wouldn't just be ignored. So are the frequent ties (by necessity as an insurgency) to crime and further the corruption they claim to despise: lead or silver approaches to government officials who can accept the silver or lose a family. We won't even touch the differing and less-than-authoritative relation to religious facts and history. There's enough variety and debate within the INS that they aren't a monolithic block, and some of their worse flaws can be alleviated, but this is still an organization that openly intends to enforce its views on others.


The Empire's primary virtue is character and advancement: they are the most liberal, least corrupt of the societies, and they have strong abilities to boot. But this is balanced both by those little hypocrisies (the individual bad eggs, the concessions of ideals to reality) and larger (the big concessions, or the over-use of power), but also an underlying sense of arrogance mixed with impotence. Contempt of their allies, almost-justified contempt of enemies that they simultaneously don't understand, and most of all those damn, noble-but-binding ROE... and that's without the whole 'occupying Empire' thing, even if it is trying to leave. The Empire is a factor at play, but it's not a faction that can 'win' in the conventional sense, and the more it (or the player) tries to force westernism on the lands, the less effective and appealing it is. White knighting for the Empire alone should be akin to tilting at windmills: considering that the 'best' ending for the Empire (getting out with interests preserved) can be done whether the player sides with NGIROA or the INS, siding with the empire above all else would really be missing the point. Plus, you know, Imperialism. That's not all good, even if it's not all bad either.




Properly done, I think there can be more than enough to keep any one faction from being dominant. One group of INS may beat women, but another will end crime and keep out corrupt predators. One NGIROA official is stealing money from a village that would be used for water... but another is spending money to buy the favor of a tribe, winning peace and alleviating problems. One Imperial regiment is naked in contempt for the locals they are supposed to mentor and train... but another is building schools and teaching craftsmen lost skills.





Elves and Americans...

Honestly, I'd see elves as British (white, pasty, smugly superior, aristocratic...) before American analogs. Americans would be more like the humans who invade elven lands, cut down trees for cities, and otherwise befoul nature in the name of progress. Plus, my personal vision of America is so ingrained with a multiethnic society that a homogenous culture just doesn't compute.

I mean, I kid you not, the only continent that doesn't have a cultural/demographic presence somewhere in my pool of coworkers is Australia. In the hall I'm sitting in, I've seen African, East Asian, Central Asian, Latino, and European in just the last fifteen minutes.


Now, I can see elves as being part of the empire, to be sure- I totally dig the idea that the Empire's allies are more ethnically homogenous than it. And I can see elves being a part of the backstory, as such...


Maybe Americans = Half Elves and others, diluting/polluting the 'pure' elven stock of the ancient homeland?
 

[Dean_the_Young]

anon wrote...

 

INS: I can see more clearly how the factions line up as player choices now. The two things I was uncomfortable with were NGIROA not being a real choice (fixed now) and Empire not being worth supporting. Am I right in saying that Empire is there more to be leveraged than joined?

Also, the Empire as half-elves is an awesome idea. Are you going to have a pasty-faced pure Elven sub-faction?

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

The Empire... I'd say it's a faction you can 'join', but more in the sense of 'who is your handler of choice.' Since the Empire and NGIROA are joined, at least in theory, picking either of them will get you more or less on the same side, but from a different perspective. 'Siding' with the Empire is a lot like siding with NGIRO, just from a a more liberal-minded/paternalist perspective. Doing what you think needs to be done for them, rather than doing what they want.


The pasty-faced pure Elven sub-faction would obviously be the Brits. Complete with the overly polite disdain for others, including the Empire.


Oh, and I had a killer idea for INS: the idea that money is really, really hard to get unless you're corrupt.

I was thinking on how we talked about using Influence, and also about the general poverty in Afghanistan. A bartar economy is a real thing here, for real reasons: capital is rare. You have your various traders, sure, and people who know how to get things... but most people don't have too much free change to spread around. Not even the Insurgents. Even the Empire doesn't like to do cash handouts, and prefers to give goods in kind.

So instead, I was thinking that the primary form of economy is the Influence economy: using that to buy and bartar for things. Money would be pretty restricted: most merchants don't have enough to really save up with (selling them equipment is really mostly paid for in equipment in kind), and sums received would often be far smaller while price tags would be large.

The key ways to get money, then, are corruption... and, faction-wise, the NGIROA. (Again, for corruption.) Stealing, extorting, or just taking pay-offs and bribes. NGIROA is the 'money' faction, taking advantage of the Empire or otherwise, and the quickest way to rack up profits. Obviously, being a counter-corruption campaigner is obviously going to mean losing out on that money... and if you're indulging in the corruption, you're in essence buying into the patronage network system.

So, money: it's rare, it can be used for really good stuff, but it's generally cheaper and easier to get most supplies and weapons through quests and influence.
 

[Dean_the_Young]

The point at which the story really began to take shape...

 

===

Intro: The PC, known as The Migrant passes out in the Great Barrier Desert, gets found by Friendly Village. Friendly Village is a nice, neutral town being courted by both the INS and Empire/NGIROA, and under pressure by the corrupt local NGIROA known as GINO.

The Player, in a magical debt-servitude as part of the deep magics that saved the life, does a few tutorial quests that expose us to the good side of the Empire, INS, and possibly GIROA. We get a sense of the tensions, but the representatives play nice due to the local neutrality. Ultimately, the player incites GINO by kicking out his enforcers, and GINO retaliates.

GINO pulls strings and gets both Dragons and Earth Beasts to attack Friendly Village, burning it to the ground. Why the INS and Empire teamed up is a mystery, and with the last dying breath the rescuer gives the PC their final task: to find out and take revenge for the village.



Open World Phase: Act 1

The open-world phase begins, which means the player can ultimately go anywhere, and get to know the factions.

The main story quest involves an investigation into both the Empire and the INS about why they destroyed friendly village. These early main quests would have both pro-INS and pro-Empire/NGIROA ways to find the information that ultimately damns GINO.

Alternatively, if the player skips the main quest and gets straight to trying to ally with a faction, before they can continue the core path to Act 2 the faction they are favoring will ultimately push them to push off GINO, who is no longer worth tolerating.

Regardless of which approach, the plot pushes the player to congront GINO in his fortress. The player can do combat, sneak, or possibly other ways, but GINO is dead/discredited and the player (with some survivors of Friendly VIllage) take over GINO's compound.

With GINO's compound becoming Player Home Base, the player has gotten the notice of everyone for offing a major player and is sent the invitations to join each faction.

 

 

Act 2: The Determining of the Factions

Like with most Bethesda games, you can still ignore the plot if you try hard enough. It's just that now is about the time that you can lock yourself out of the factional routes, limiting yourself to the Warlord/independence route of last resort.

The main goal of Act 2 is that you strengthen your faction of choice with allies/removing enemies, which entails quests to all the major sub-factions and sub-regions in the game. Through the course of this you'll encounter more of the bad as well as good for the factions, and generally end up making your reputation.

The main story progression here is the recognition and development of the impending Royalty Visit, which shall be the Decisive Point in how the Empire leaves.


Act 3 is the End Game, building into the finale as the final steps are taken. You've locked in your faction, probably been reviled by the enemy, crafted alliances. Now comes the last steps.

Depending on your positioning, you're either working with the INS to make the Royal Visit the Tet Offensive, the scope of which is up for influence, or you're working for the Empire and NGIROA to lessen it (unless you're really devious and want the Empire to stay, in which case you can sabotage the defense of the Royalty). A few special missions, faction-specific, set you up for the Big Battle.


Then, the finale:

The ultimate decisive piece is the fate of the Royal Emissionary and their ultimate verdict. Does the Empire leave victorious, does the Empire double down, or does the Empire cut a deal with the INS and leave in good order, abandoning NGIROA to the INS and/or you? Lots of different outcomes here, which lead into the post-finale outcome.

The post-finale is really seeing the results of the finale in a more scripted scene. This is where you can see the double-downed Empire unleash its full force against the previously victorious INS, revealing what happens if the Empire is a bit less restrained. Or you could see something else, like NGIROA leading while the Empire stands back. Or something.


Then comes the FNV-style epilogues, detailing the many varied fates of the places and people of the world.

The End.
 

[Dean_the_Young]

You wrote...
Re INS side quests: I think the ancient dragon one is great because it explores the central conflict from a different angle (the reveal that ancient dragons were comparatively puny is firstly a hilarious subversion of the usual schtick, but secondly it demonstrates the Empire's mastery of science and knowledge). I'd try and preserve this approach as much as possible, so that every conflict feels like it's tied at least thematically to the main plot and so doesn't feel "bolted on" by the writers.

===

I kind of like the not-Buddhist statues one myself: the idea that the ancient not-Afghanistan was polytheistic and not the same, unchanging thing not only pits a different view of the Insurgents who claim to be the traditionalists (who are you who don't know your own real history?), but also frames the difference in the Empire and INS's religions.

I figure the Empire is de facto secular, but at least culturally polytheistic: a pantheon of gods, of which the Earth Father is just one. Not-Afghanistan, however, is effectively monotheistic: at most the other gods are aspects of the One True God. To the more religious not-Islamics, the secular polytheism is basically alien and innately wrong.

Which is why an ancient group of statues, in which the Earth Father is just one of equal gods/aspects, is borderline heretical to the INS who want to destroy it. It not only challenges their interpretation, it challenges their claim to history and the truth. Destroying the inconvenient historical truth becomes a matter of ideological necessity to justify their current depiction/distortion of the past.

 

===

 

I also wrote...

 

So, on a brief INS note...

I was reading an article with a picture about how INS in Syria, like in Afghanistan, sometimes go around with rock-camouflaged blankets or what not to throw over themselves when aircraft fly over. It was good and all, actually hard to tell the people from the rocks...

...but they looked like turtles, man. People-turtles. Alost like a earth-version of a Japanese spirit/thingie called a kappa, which is a anthromorphic water-turtle but still.

Which convinced me: if the Empire will get Cat-eyed people inspired by Kevlars, the INS will get rock-Kappas, who are utterly invisible to Dragons because they turtle up and look like rocks when a Dragon flies over.
 

[Dean_the_Young]

I think some good levity could be gotten from some 'I heard' or 'I saw a video' situations. Sometimes, reality is stranger than fiction. Like, Professional Pressure Plate Tester.

PPPT is a guy who took it upon himself to test a buried pressure-plate IED. Presumably it was buried with the intent to only go off on when a vehicle went over, because when he gingerly approached and tapped it with his feet, nothing happened. Nor did it go off when he walked over it. Or when he stepped out a ways and came on screen running over it.

Should be good, right? Well, one more test. Let's try jumping on it.

A short bounce.
A bunny bounce.
A really big, foot-pounding bo-OOOOOOM.

Sadly, PPPT was one day from retirement.

 

---

 

So one of the few things that bring out INS senior leaders into public places is a funeral. INS funerals, I've found, often have large crowds: easily into the hundreds, due to popular favor/coercion, and in some ways the masses of people have reminded me of a zombie crowd, the way the mob and follow the vehicle of interest. It's not unknown to see dozens of people parading a vehicle through the street... or a good number of guards on patrol, openly staking out roof tops, and so on.

It actually reminded me of the mission in Vegas to save/assassinate the NCR president. Which becomes the basis of this.

Either is a area-specific quest or a campaign quest, one of the questlines could lead to a funeral, and one of those VII (Very Important Insurgents) is going to come out and speak at it. The INS intend to use it as a rally, recruit some fighters/suicide bombers from the crowd, etc. It could be a big recruiting event for the INS... or a capture/kill chance for the Empire and not-GIROA.

Except, and here's the thing (and the reason we don't interrupt the funerals very often in real life)... approaching the funeral not only is likely to see the target flee, but also turn the crowd against you. And killing a lot of villagers is not a good PR move.


So this would be a mission in which, assuming the layer is anti-INS, the player has to assassinate/discredit the VII carefully. If you screw up and get caught, or try to do it openly, everyone turns hostile... and if the player kills civilians, everyone- even the Empire and not-GIROA, will hate you for it.

I can see it being a perfect (though probably save-scummed) way for a player to 'make their mark' in a Warlord-route, and a serious way to reflect both the rational behind such ROE-restrictions and give the players a bad-karma route.

 

 

===

 

 

anon wrote...

 

I was thinking about INS and your point that the Empire needs to be multiracial to make it reflect the US Army. I totally think you should develop this more: having the Imperial faction be the most cosmopolitan says a lot about them.

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

Well, yeah. I thought Cosmopolitan was implied by 'Empire', but I suppose it isn't necessarily.

I've read a few fantasy/fiction varients of American wars, and one of the interesting things is how they reference the American capital/cities. New York is a frequent target, and makes a good comparison because there is no comparison between New York City and an Afghan Village. The scope is just so different that even an open-minded villager might go 'it's... big, right? Really big, so a couple hundred people? Maybe a thousand?'

It's hard to fathom that your entire village, and the next five towns over, could fit into a single apartment with room to spare.


And, an amusing way to reflect DC...

There was a fantasy Civil War depiction that had a theme of 'north is south' and which, among many historical puns and allusions, basically interveted the history. King Lincoln rules the South from the Black Palace while the biggest city is Old -insert pun related to York-.

 

===

 

I also wrote...

 

otes for later-

Cyclops- the INS beastie mixing mountain-top early warning networks and repeater towers. Keep the eye intact! (It's based off of mono-lens NVGs.)


Money Quest- a major quest for a money stream. Find a lost mine of precious/magic metals. Decide which faction will handle the money. Or do it yourself. Or blow up the mine to appease the Western Environmentalists.


Common Money Quests- the sort of repeatable mission for money grinding. Probably could only do one per area before waiting awhile to repeat. Each major faction has a theme associated with their money. NGIROA is corruption, obviously: demanding money for expected services, or taking money meant for one purpose and using it elsewhere. The Empire is waste: I don't think that needs much explanation. And the Insurgency is crime: extortion, 'taxes', illegal checkpoints/robbery, and strong ties to organized crime that they would normally oppose.

 

===

 

anon wrote...

 

INS: you were talking about side quest ideas recently. Last night, during my 20 mile run, I was thinking about tribes in general and it made me have an INS related idea that might be fun. You know how some tribes (I don't know which ones, of course, because I'm a sneering pasty-faced imperialist) have like vision quests? And also how some tribes re-enact their myths?

At least, I think they probably do both of those things. It's not like they have Xboxes or porn or anything.

Anyway. My idea was to have playable vision quests in INS. These would be a bunch of unrelated side quests, along the lines of the Daedric artefact quests. The original concept is that they happen in a spirit world, not the real world, and that in each of the quests the PC has to reenact some ancient quest that one of the gods undertook. So my idea is basically that you could use these side quests as a way to play with the software engine. Maybe in one of the side quests you can fly, or jump ten stories, or you're playing a god who is twenty feet tall and fights with his mighty hands.

Basically you could write some absolutely crazy quests and give the PC amazing powers, and at the end of it go back to the questline because it was all just a drug-induced vision quest. I just thought it might be interesting to have a set of side quests that were a total break from the normal pace and style of the game.

 

===

 

I wrote...

 

Vision Quest

I could see it. Maybe not so much an INS-specific thing, but a local spiritualism/superstition/magic thing. Magic is firmly established in the setting, but playing with the line between whether there are gods or not would be cool. The Daedric Princes are active participants in the world, but INS is more of a world in which magic reaches a point where people would start wondering if there is a god. If that makes sense.

But I could see Vision Quests as a sort of inter-connected chain of sorts. It would be interesting if the culmination of them actually gave a 'proof', or at least very strong implication, that the god(s) are real... sort of a 'you have undergone many trials and been rewarded with a glimpse of heaven' sort of thing. Imagine seeing your perspective shift to the earth below, only to zoom out and fade in so that you could see every creature, every beast, everything moving, which blurs the lines and features until you actually see a Face... the so called Face of the Earth Father.

Divine vision... or just tripped out? Who knows.

[Dean_the_Young]

First, the monster- the Cyclops.

What is it based off of? INS mountain-top early warning observers, and repeater towers.

Repeater towers are basic very cheap, solar powered receive-rebroadcast antennas used to extend the range of INS radios. They’re cheap, easy to set up, and as long as you have them you can easily talk into the next valley over. INS early warning observers are, well, just that. Take a man. Give him some binos or, better, an NVG. Put him on a mountain ridge with a radio, and when he sees troops rolling in or A/C approaching, he and the repeater tower pass the message and get everyone moving.

What really started this idea was the image of an INS with old GEN 1 NVGs- the mono-lens type that protrude from your half a foot, even if it covers both eyes. It gives a weird, distinctive silhouette.


So, in game, what is it? Basically a cave-man who looks strong and tough… and has a elongated face with a single eye. Past that, more beast than man, and a magic construct to boot.

In the lore, the INS and the Empire have different views.

The INS religious lore calls them the Earth Father’s Watchers, the Sons of the Earth- created by the Earth Father to witness his creation, sing his praises, and defend his faithful. Revered if not respected, they are considered valued guardians for communities and Earth Sages and such. The INS use them to watch for enemies, and during the Great War the not-Soviets tried to hunt them to extinction. The Empire helped bring them back as an endangered species and as part of reconciliation post-war, but is now faced with the same threat.

Basically, divine-origin guard dogs.

The Empire’s Sages have a less romantic view of it. The Cyclops are clearly magical in origin, they agree… they just think it was deliberate magical engineering by an ancient empire of old (say, back in the time of not-Alexander the Great). The Cyclops abilities and makeup are relatively well understood: the Eye is basically a magical crystal ball giving the Cyclops Earth Sight, and also allowing them to communicate distances on the ether by their ‘song.’ The Empire’s mages can do the same, and better, via their modern magics, but the Cyclops are still capable enough. Cyclops are particularly sensitive to Earth Mending, which allows even novice Earth Menders to tame them, which is part of why not-Afghanistan has them in such numbers. In most other places in the world, however, Cyclops are either rare or outright extinct, hunted for their eyes- a Cyclops eye is a potent magical device, basically a multi-purpose crystal ball, and so many were killed by empires of old to harvest them. (The Empire now doesn’t because it’s magics have surpassed the Cyclops Eye- now Cyclops are protected as endangered, an admin hassle that annoys troops and commanders who understand how much the INS rely on them.)

Basically, mage bio-engineering from a previous age, now no longer cutting-edge.

In gameplay-

Hiding in crevices/caves on top of mountains/ridgelines, the Cyclops is a melee-only enemy who can be dangerous if he takes you by surprise. Between a heavy hit and potential pushback, a well positioned yeti could literally knock an attacker off the mountain to their death. Killing them by means other than head destruction leaves you their eye, which can be used as a tool (basically the grossest NVGs ever), or sold/used for crafting. I could see a Cyclops Eye being a crafting tool for a devilish looking helmet with perception/night vision bonuses.

Cyclops make a good repeating mission for both factions. Past deliberate quests, which would have more rewards, the repeating quests would be like this.

In the INS repeating quest, you set up a yeti, I mean give birth to a repeater tower, I mean- well, you go up to the mountain top with some magical components. You use said magical components to start a ritual that will create a Cyclops. Once you do so, some beasts about as strong as the Cyclops approach- you can leave it to fight the beasts, which it might win, or your can help out. If the Cyclops survives, you get a reward of influence and the skins of those beasts. If the Cyclops dies maybe a small influence loss, but you can keep the eye.

In the Empire quest, you go out and hunt one. ‘Illegally’, of course, but with a wink and a nod. Find it. Kill it. Take the eye for yourself, and get a reputation bonus as well.



Overall a quest that, once you do it one or twice for the relatively rare items, you probably won’t do too often… kind of like how rarely we send ground forces onto a mountain top to remove a tower that take a day to replace

 

===

 

Mega Money Quest

So I’ve mentioned I like the influence economy- it’s a good way for the player to sustain themselves of common items, from food to ammo, and makes a good faction-specific way to reflect how someone is more involved and able to get something from their faction. I like it, especially since Afghanistan is a poor country. It doesn’t feel right to me that if you were carrying fifty RPGs that you’d readily find people able to buy them all.

Money should be relatively rare- most shop keepers having money equivalent to the caravan traders of FNV (a few hundred caps, when great weapons are several thousand), loot isn’t always great, and the primary form of rewards should be from quests or from the factions. (IRL, INS offer varying amounts of money for bring them weapons/proving you destroyed various equipment.)

But, while influence and loot can sustain a player, and quest rewards mitigate the need for buying some weapons, there should still be a good, Afghanistan-themed path to a steady supply of money. For home improvements, if nothing else.

Well, are you aware that Afghanistan was recently assessed to have trillions of dollars of untapped mineral deposits of precious metals? And that Real Life INS frequently extort mines, or even operate illegal mines, to smuggle ore for money?

In a nutshell, that’s the quest- a top tier quest, worthy of Radio New Vegas, and a money stream forevermore due to you finding and clearing a lost, abandoned mine worth untold fortunes.

The mine, more of an ancient palace from the Earth Masters of old, who didn’t even realize the true worth of the mythril/precious metals within, is obviously infested with Earth Beasts and traps and etc. But… precious metals. Lots of precious metals.

The actual set-up and actors can be quibbled in the implementation. I feel there should be general factional alignment, but not with the actual factions- more in terms of their financial aspects. The greedy foreign corporation for the Empire. The corrupt but nationalized NGIROA. The INS dominated, local Islamic banking system. Who handles the money afterwards would be a choice, with varying benefits for the player.

I would also be tickled if there was an environmentalist option- some activists from the Empire, the sort who protest any industrial development, ask you to blow up the entrance to the caverns to protect the wildlife (earth beasts) within and save the landscape. Do it, and you get a pittance of influence and lose out on a region-elevating economic project.


But yeah. Outcomes.

NGIROA is actually the ‘best’ in terms of maximum payout to the player. Corruption working your way, if you make a few bribes, but it’s pretty hefty payout in terms of cash flow. The most money per time period (player game time?), a steady stream of NGIROA influence as well, but no other benefits. The emphasis on a guaranteed stream of money and influence, no matter what your alignment with the factions (exploiting non-factional internal corruption even if anti-NGIROA) makes this a good option for enriching yourself and guaranteeing a certain level of access and supply.



The Empire is the Foreign Corporation. Mining experts with oil company connotations, intent on getting the maximum profit out of the mines… which doesn’t mean as much for the player (profit margins), but they make up for it with the Shop Store. Besides money and a modest Empire Influence, the Shop Store is an exclusive shop for high-end equipment associated with the Empire. Upper tier weapons, armor, etc., for a high price but guaranteed access that might normally be restricted to the Empire elites.



The INS path is more about Islamic Banking. Don’t know what you know about the system, but it’s a conceptual development that opposed the abuses of western interest charging (as unfair to the poor), but makes up the difference in other ways. IRL it’s a major way INS move money around, and in the context of the game it can be thought of as an INS-dominated movement of money through the local economy. (IE, the INS will take a cut.)

It’s the lowest payout to the player… but it has a significant impact in funneling the money and credit through the local merchants. Across the map Merchants get a significant boost to their money supplies, going from being 600-cap caravan traders to 1000-3000 cap small stores- this will make it far easier for the player to offload gear for money (rather than turning it in to a faction for influence/a fraction of value). Between practical and ethical good, a solid claim for a merit for the INS.



There could also be a pro-Warlord option- claim the mine as your own, an extension of your holdings you claimed from GINO. The mine could be more profitable than even NGIROA… if you mine it yourself, transport the ore yourself, and sell it yourself. Or you can take a cut to hire people to do it for you, reducing your profits to a bit above the INS path. The key here is that you can claim the rocks directly, and choose who to sell to for how much.

The idea of using the ore as a crafting material (for expendables, grenades, weapons, or armor) means you could use the mine as a source for raw materials when you need them. Or, when you want to sell them for profit, and you can choose which faction, and for how much, gaining a reputation bonus with the faction you choose. This is a balance between profit and influence - if you use a Barter check to drive a high price, you get more money but less influence. If you sell at the base price, you get a mix of both. If you undersell, you get less money but both more influence and a higher reputation bonus.

The point of this route is flexibility and using your resource to balance the factions.

===

Repeating Money Quests/Sources

So as a thought of how money should primarily come from quests, and there should be some form of grinding possible, and how the factions should have thematic balances, and how war is bullshit…

Each faction had a theme of how you could get money from them.

The Empire is Waste.

I don’t think you need any reminders of the sort of mis-allocation of funds and resources our governments are capable of. The34 million dollar command center that will never be used, containers filled with electronics just sitting forgotten on FOBs, throwing money to buy off people… hell, even how we destroy all the weapons and equipment we find. The locals are pragmatic: they repurpose what they capture all the time. I take your gun, and I can use it. The Empire doesn’t- it will destroy the weapons it seizes, and then pay you with more.

Money quests from the Empire are basically exploiting their wastefulness.


Not-GIROA is Corruption.

Obvious, and already touched on. Taking the taxes people paid and using them for personal uses. Taking foreign aid meant for one thing and using it for another. Kick backs, insider agreements, and more. The player doesn’t just exploit these… the player becomes a participant and engages in them. Insurance scams (player blows up a NGIROA vehicle without resistance, gets a kickback), tax fraud for kickbacks, etc.

Money quests with NGIROA are basically being part of the problem.


The INS are Crime.

Crimes they commit, of extortion and ‘taxes’ demanded at gunpoint. Crime they further, through drugs and smuggling. Crime they associate with, the organized crime networks they rely on for smuggling and movement. Propaganda to the contrary, they are quite capable of targeting the people they claim to be fighting for in order to sustain themselves. It might be necessary for the rebellion, but it’s not without its victims.

Money quests with the INS are frequently born by the masses to weak to resist.


---

Now, about Loot-

I mentioned I felt that it should be hard to unload the weapons and loot you take off your foes on to stores for full value. Especially in the early game, there should be excess value capacity, and no money to take. So what does a player do?

Turn it in to a faction for a pittance, and influence.

‘Weapon turn in’ would be a way to get rid of equipment for something, and a way to build influence and reputation. Go to a faction turn-in, give them the weapons, and get a little something in return. We have IRL programs similar to it: gun buyback programs in the Western World (like the US), while the Taliban actually has a standing list price of how much they’ll pay you if you turn in X, Y, or Z.

Money wise, it would be a pittance. 10% of the monetary gear. But you would also get a bit of Influence, to spend for food/ammo/etc., and also a bit of a positive reputation. Not an ‘ideal’ way to gather money, but enough to start the player off.


---

Reputation vs. Influence vs. Money

To distinguish my thoughts on the matter. I see a role for all three, but have been vague.


Reputation is the FNV usage of it- basically how much people like you. It has a multiplier effect on Influence, but otherwise isn’t bought or sold. You gain small amounts when you do small quests, lose it in when you oppose a faction, and otherwise are known by your reputation. It could stand to have a bit of decay over time, to keep the player doing the occasional small task.


Influence is the informal economy- the ‘I did you a good turn, now you do me one’ that can be traded for various things. Affected by Reputation, with a high reputation preserving your influence and a negative reputation increasing costs/decaying it faster, it should be the ‘low value’ economy. A way to get some persuasions, ammo, food, basic supplies. It could also be used to fast travel- though much be owed a favor to hitch a ride. In some cases it may be more cost effective than money, such as ammo from INS or medicine from the Empire, but there should also be a decay factor that kicks in if you don’t use influence. Influence can also be a way to get into exclusive shops and areas.


Money is formal, and blind. It’s relatively rare, merchants and loot rarely have much, and it’s a bit more limited. It’s basically a more expensive version of influence, but can be used for higher-end things. The biggest money sinks will be your Compound from GINO, supporting an intelligence network, and high-end equipment. The Money Quest can generally support one of these at a time, making money something you’re always a little short on.


===

 

 

anon wrote...

 

Wow, the Cyclops Eye is both grisly and great. In terms of mechanics I can see it working more using the Skyrim control system – hold it in your left hand, and the left trigger brings it up to the screen and renders everything in Cateye-vision.

This would be an amazing piece of kit if the game had more dark areas. One of the disappointments of Skyrim to me was how brightly lit everything was – I think exploring those Draugr tombs would have been more exciting if they'd been in total darkness and I'd needed to carry a torch.

If there was some stealth/combat logic so the Cyclops Eye allowed you to sneak around dark areas without being seen it could lead to some awesome, Splinter Cell style sneak-em-ups.

The advantage of crafting the helmet would of course be that you had both hands free for weapons and equipment.

Good idea. Or...one could say...good EYE-dear. Ho ho ho!

 

===

 

Eye wrote...

 

You totally get it with the Cyclops Eye- complete with the skyrim grip squeeze for sound effects! I can see it being used to increase perception, a pair of binoculars, NVGs, and even a sort of replacement for the dog-companion 'highlight pick-up items', for when you're hunting for loot on the ground. An all around useful item for optics.

 

Basically, imagine that the Cyclops Eye is an item that decays with use. So if you use it too much, it decays and then when you take it out and squeeze it it goes 'plop' in your hand, and you have to go out and get another one.

Makes a good reason to take advantage of the repeating quest.


...but that was a bad pun, and you should feel bad.

[Dean_the_Young]

Funerals.

INS, being Earth-oriented, bury their dead. Return to the Earth Father and all that.


The Empire may cremate ('ashes to ashes, dust to dust'), but their ritual is to airlift the dead with a special summoned dragon. Let's call it a moon dragon, which is called while soldiers stand silently and comes to pick up and carry off the departed to the Empire, where they can be cremated with honor.

Wings that can reflect moonlight, large enough to circle over it and the fallen soldier, before taking off while watched by a silent crowd.