IOT Developmental Thread

-Scratch the "one attack per enemy" rule
3 attacks!

-Distance penalties for attacking without using overseas bases for operations
Yes

-Points system for war
NEIN! ES IST NICHT GUT!

-War by story
No, I don't play this game to roleplay. That's what GSTK is for.

-Risk style war
Nah.

-War by Civ IV
I don't have Civ IV.

- Size of armies should effect combat
This makes sense

- Size of armies should be deal with in terms of units/divisions (like in Civ) rather than actual troop numbers.
Sure why not.

- Tactics and effects of terrain, defensive structures, etc on a military operation should be represented with some sort of combat modifier similar to Civ4 "promotions" and terrain bonuses.
Wat?

- You should be able to research stronger units (tank level 1, tank level 2,...)
No, we'd kinda need a system for this first.

- To prevent entire armies attacking a single provinces, there should be a limit of how large a force can be in a province. Perhaps introduce a "logistics" tech, with the limit being increased every level of logistics you research.
NO RESEARCH RAAAAWR

-War based on grid like maps
Yell hes!

-War based on units and a RNG rather than dice
Gah?

-War based on Rock paper scissors
No.

-Send battle orders to GM rather than to the thread to cut down on spam
curbing expansion during war to make it possible to conquer another nation, plus to make war look less attractive
No

-Lighthearter's very complex idea for combat
Complex doesn't mean fun.


-Battle
No


-a system to prevent world wars always occurring
No, I think we're fine right now.

I like the RA3 system. I want that.

-Scratch the "one attack per enemy" rule
3 attacks!

-Distance penalties for attacking without using overseas bases for operations
Yes

-Points system for war
NEIN! ES IST NICHT GUT!

-War by story
No, I don't play this game to roleplay. That's what GSTK is for.

-Risk style war
Nah.

-War by Civ IV
I don't have Civ IV.

- Size of armies should effect combat
This makes sense

- Size of armies should be deal with in terms of units/divisions (like in Civ) rather than actual troop numbers.
Sure why not.

- Tactics and effects of terrain, defensive structures, etc on a military operation should be represented with some sort of combat modifier similar to Civ4 "promotions" and terrain bonuses.
Wat?

- You should be able to research stronger units (tank level 1, tank level 2,...)
No, we'd kinda need a system for this first.

- To prevent entire armies attacking a single provinces, there should be a limit of how large a force can be in a province. Perhaps introduce a "logistics" tech, with the limit being increased every level of logistics you research.
NO RESEARCH RAAAAWR

-War based on grid like maps
Yell hes!

-War based on units and a RNG rather than dice
Gah?

-War based on Rock paper scissors
No.

-Send battle orders to GM rather than to the thread to cut down on spam
curbing expansion during war to make it possible to conquer another nation, plus to make war look less attractive
No

-Lighthearter's very complex idea for combat
Complex doesn't mean fun.


-Battle
No


-a system to prevent world wars always occurring
No, I think we're fine right now.

I like the RA3 system. I want that.

CivGeneral said:

Hopefully this can get entered in:

NO SURPRISE ATTACKS AGAINST ANOTHER NATION!

Click to expand...

Well where's the fun in that?

And isn't every attack a surprise attack? Where do we make the distinction?

Anyways, if you want to add it you'll have to wait until the voting is done, just so we don't clog up the thread.

Joecoolyo said:

Well where's the fun in that?

And isn't every attack a surprise attack? Where do we make the distinction?

Anyways, if you want to add it you'll have to wait until the voting is done, just so we don't clog up the thread.

Click to expand...

my definition of a surprise attack is an attack BEFORE war was officially declared. like pearl harbor.

Mathalamus said:

my definition of a surprise attack is an attack BEFORE war was officially declared. like pearl harbor.

Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter much since the DoW and first attack occurs in the same turn.

As for voting, I have no idea since Ive compleately lost all track of this thread.

Joecoolyo said:

Well where's the fun in that?

And isn't every attack a surprise attack? Where do we make the distinction?

Click to expand...

Supprise attacks: sending your attack orders privately to the GM and not on the war thread.

IMO, should not be implemented since its the equivelent to hitting someone below the belt.

Joecoolyo said:

Anyways, if you want to add it you'll have to wait until the voting is done, just so we don't clog up the thread.

Click to expand...

Damn it!!

Mathalamus said:

my definition of a surprise attack is an attack BEFORE war was officially declared. like pearl harbor.

Click to expand...

Correct.

Joecoolyo said:

Well where's the fun in that?

And isn't every attack a surprise attack? Where do we make the distinction?

Anyways, if you want to add it you'll have to wait until the voting is done, just so we don't clog up the thread.

Click to expand...

No offense to CivGeneral, but this is a terrible Idea. It kills the realism and fun. And this is emotional from him. See IOT II.

taillesskangaru said:

Doesn't really matter much since the DoW and first attack occurs in the same turn.

Click to expand...

See IOTII

CivGeneral said:

As for voting, I have no idea since Ive compleately lost all track of this thread.

Click to expand...

Just look for my post that says, Voting: Round [whatever] in bold and underline, and that would be the current vote.

I'm tyring to keep this place very orderly so people who are just joining us won't be too lost.

CivGeneral said:

Supprise attacks: sending your attack orders privately to the GM and not on the war thread.

IMO, should not be implemented since its the equivelent to hitting someone below the belt.

Click to expand...

Hmm... I like that idea.

CivGeneral said:

Damn it!!

Click to expand...

But you're going to have to wait like everyone else (including tailless, omega, and civplayah).

I just want this voting process to be smooth and not strewn off-topic until we've finished it.

Anyways, about the vote... GAH!

I think, just for sanity's sake, I'm going to hold off on tallying up the votes until after dinner... gah....

-Scratch the "one attack per enemy" rule

Yea
-Distance penalties for attacking without using overseas bases for operations
Yea

-Points system for war
It depends. I guess Yea.

-War by story
Not for the official results. If you want to do it for fun, sure.

-Risk style war
Nay

-War by Civ IV
Nay

- Size of armies should effect combat
Yay (But it shouldn't be the only factor.)
- Size of armies should be deal with in terms of units/divisions (like in Civ) rather than actual troop numbers.
Yay. That would much simpler

- Tactics and effects of terrain, defensive structures, etc on a military operation should be represented with some sort of combat modifier similar to Civ4 "promotions" and terrain bonuses.
If we can keep from making it too complicated, yea.

- You should be able to research stronger units (tank level 1, tank level 2,...)
Nay. To complicated.

- To prevent entire armies attacking a single provinces, there should be a limit of how large a force can be in a province. Perhaps introduce a "logistics" tech, with the limit being increased every level of logistics you research.
Yea.

-War based on grid like maps (linky for further explanation)
Yea.

-War based on units and a RNG rather than dice
Sounds better than the afore mentioned ones, so YEA.

-War based on Rock paper scissors
Nay.

-Send battle orders to GM rather than to the thread to cut down on spam
Yea.

curbing expansion during war to make it possible to conquer another nation, plus to make war look less attractive
Yea.

-Lighthearter's very complex idea for combat (linky)

-Battle- Not sure exactly how this would be done, but it would be based on your population. Population would be based on real life, for instance, Florida would have 13 Million people, and you could maintain troops based on your population, based on your military rating, for instance:

One in 200 men automatically serve in the military. For instance if you have 20 million population, you would have 100,000 troops, and since each unit is 1,000, you would have 100 units in total. Once you lose units, you don't get them back, except through the military rating. Each turn, you gain 1 unit per rating in military you have. You can also gain military by annexing new land. For instance, if you annex Florida, you get 13 million population. You would gain a proportional amount of troops. Combat would basically be risk, except it would be affected by terrain, for examples, see below:

Jungle: If attacking Jungle from non-Jungle territory, lose 1 unit per turn to Malaria

Arctic- If attacking in Winter, defender adds 2 to their roll

Exc. Dice would be rolled by a neutral GM, to prevent fudging.

Obviously, there would have to be less territories, number of troops in a territory would just be written down in MS paint. This wouldn't work with small territories, hence the need to make them bigger. However, I'm okay with that. For instance, say you have 12 troops in Florida:

You would write, in black, the number 12 in the territory of Florida.

You can attack territories you are not adjacent to by air or sea, however, if attacking a coastal territory by sea, the defender adds 1 to their die rolls, if you attack an inland territory by air, they add 2.

While at war, you wouldn't be able to expand (Maybe a small amount if you have a high expansion rating.)

You can attack three territories a turn. Mass invasions only count as one (For instance, say you control armies in Florida and Georgia, and want to invade Alabama. You can combine the armies and attack Alabama for just one invasion. However, this applies only to invasions of territories next to you, not sea and air invasions.

Sounds complicated, but I think we could make it work. YEA.

-a system to prevent world wars always occurring
Yea.

DroopyTofu said:

-[Snip]

-a system to prevent world wars always occurring
Yea.

Click to expand...

Hang on a second, how? Are you trying to disallow multiple countries to allign, trying to give GM generated penalties, or just giving natural penalties like unhappiness?

If the first one- No

If the Second one- No

If the Third One- If they are realistic penalties and not exaggerated just to get an effect sure. World Wars have their place and should be possible, but I agree they are a bit too common and easy ATM.

By requiring countries to have a casus belli.

Zack said:

By requiring countries to have a casus belli.

Click to expand...

You can come up with any reason you want? For instance, how good the reason is aside, I had a reason to attack you in IOT II, I can attack someone just because I want more land, they attacked my "Friends" (Which could be someone I don't even like) because they have a Liberal Government, exc.

OPPOSE.

If they want to make it more difficult, such as dealing with revolts and such for unpopular wars, I favor, but don't make it over the top.

Alright, here are the tally's... let the feast of a 1000 I's and 0's begin!

-Scratch the "one attack per enemy" rule IIII/0
-Distance penalties for attacking without using overseas bases for operations IIII
-Points system for war II/000
-War by story III/0000
-Risk style war IIII/00
-War by Civ IV I/0000
- Size of armies should effect combat IIIII/0
- Size of armies should be deal with in terms of units/divisions (like in Civ) rather than actual troop numbers. IIIIII/0
- Tactics and effects of terrain, defensive structures, etc on a military operation should be represented with some sort of combat modifier similar to Civ4 "promotions" and terrain bonuses. IIIII
- You should be able to research stronger units (tank level 1, tank level 2,...) III/00
- To prevent entire armies attacking a single provinces, there should be a limit of how large a force can be in a province. Perhaps introduce a "logistics" tech, with the limit being increased every level of logistics you research. II/0000
-War based on grid like maps (linky for further explanation) III/000
-War based on units and a RNG rather than dice IIII/00
-War based on Rock paper scissors II/000000
-Send battle orders to GM rather than to the thread to cut down on spam IIII/00
-curbing expansion during war to make it possible to conquer another nation, plus to make war look less attractive III
-Lighthearter's very complex idea for combat (linky) III/000

- III/0

-a system to prevent world wars always occurring IIII/0

Do to the shear amount of responses and votes, I've probably made a lot of mistakes counting them up. So I don't know if this is entirely accurate or not, but I am not going to recount. For the love of god and for the sake of my sanity, I am NOT going to recount. We'll use the numbers above unless one of you guys really doesn't like life and is willing to take one for the team and double check my counting.

But now that that's over, let's move onto round 5! This time, I'm only going to do 3 ideas again (and I think you guys know why). And they're all Tailless' ideas considering his are the next 3 on the list.

Voting: Round 5
- Use a map similar to IOT4, but with less provinces.
- Start with a blank slate; so, the world is assumed to be empty at the start. Then, players will stake out their claims (they can only claim once, and only a certain number of territories). The rest of the world (unclaimed) would be divided up into NPCs. If you want more territories, then you'll have to go to war.
- All the starting nations would have similar level of development at the beginning.

EDIT: Please keep the off-topic chatter to a minimum, I'm looking at you Dommy.

Is mine a yes or a no? It tied and I'd count that as a yes.

- No
- No
- Yes

- Lighthearter

Joecoolyo said:

Voting: Round 5
- Use a map similar to IOT4, but with less provinces.
- Start with a blank slate; so, the world is assumed to be empty at the start. Then, players will stake out their claims (they can only claim once, and only a certain number of territories). The rest of the world (unclaimed) would be divided up into NPCs. If you want more territories, then you'll have to go to war.
- All the starting nations would have similar level of development at the beginning.

EDIT: Please keep the off-topic chatter to a minimum, I'm looking at you Dommy.

Click to expand...

1. yeah
2. no. NPCs are a pain. and it would feel crowded. really really crowded.
3. what level of development? United states first world? Soviet union second world? India third world?

Domination3000 said:

You can come up with any reason you want? For instance, how good the reason is aside, I had a reason to attack you in IOT II, I can attack someone just because I want more land, they attacked my "Friends" (Which could be someone I don't even like) because they have a Liberal Government, exc.

OPPOSE.

If they want to make it more difficult, such as dealing with revolts and such for unpopular wars, I favor, but don't make it over the top.

Click to expand...

Try playing EUIII, I think that's the kind of casus belli system he's envisioning.

Use a map similar to IOT4, but with less provinces.

Click to expand...

No, that map is fine. Some areas are fine, but the areas with the tiny provinces need to be consolidated. YES

- Start with a blank slate; so, the world is assumed to be empty at the start. Then, players will stake out their claims (they can only claim once, and only a certain number of territories). The rest of the world (unclaimed) would be divided up into NPCs. If you want more territories, then you'll have to go to war.

Click to expand...

NO.

- All the starting nations would have similar level of development at the beginning.

Click to expand...

Isn't this how it already works?

Zack said:

No, that map is fine.

Click to expand...

you woudlent say if its fine if you start out as Nigeria.

YES to all three

Yea to all three.