GhostWriter16
Deity
I think your explanation is a good one, and I now agree with you.
Thanks
IOT Developmental Thread
- Thread starter Joecoolyo
- Start date
I think your explanation is a good one, and I now agree with you.
Thanks
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
well, i think its time for me to decide between canada, USA, Spain, Russia, Germany, Brazil and Japan. so many choices, so little time.
i didn't list Byzantium. im finally tired of playing that nation.
i didn't list Byzantium. im finally tired of playing that nation.
Heh. I'm also tired of nuclear weapons. They're just an unpleasant way to ruin someone's fun and a cheap way to end the game when the GM gets bored.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
well yeah, but in IOTII you can always reclaim the area. sure it has almost no population or infrastructure, but it doesn't really matter in that game. thats how i like it.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
No, Nukes just mean more diplomacy needed to prevents wars. With the way I have it set up, Nukes are devastating to both your economy and your enemies. Its better to not use them.
Well, this one's not going to start at least until one or two of the other IOTs have finished (I mean, there are six games going on...) and ideally after Ab Antiquo finishes (that means, people in Ab Antiquo, start warring and/or culture spamming!
)GhostWriter16
Deity
I think the odds for destruction of a province with a nuke should be higher than 20. Your current system doesn't seem to discourage their usage much. I'd make the odds 100% or approaching 100%. I'd also give everyone a casus beli against anyone who takes the first nuclear shot (If Casus Beli system exists.)
For the Casus Belli system I'm just going to have one value called Infamy. Everyone starts with a Infamy of zero. Infamy increases if you declare war, is at war, and in-game rhetoric increases it too, though not as much. You lose Infamy if you're at peace.
So how this works is you can only declare war on a country with a Infamy higher than 30 if you're a dictatorship and 50 if you are a democracy (I might change these numbers). Otherwise, you suffer a penalty; every province you take in the war incurs Infamy. This applies to every country fighting on the side of the aggressor.
So how this works is you can only declare war on a country with a Infamy higher than 30 if you're a dictatorship and 50 if you are a democracy (I might change these numbers). Otherwise, you suffer a penalty; every province you take in the war incurs Infamy. This applies to every country fighting on the side of the aggressor.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I would recommend with that kind of a system you don't actually play an in-game nation because it seems impossible to make into a formula. Which is fine if you aren't in the game.
I like the idea of the infamy system, but I like the idea of being allowed to declare war if you have valid cause even if they don't have a lot of infamy. Like, if you have a border dispute and try to settle it by peaceful means but fail and go to war, the penalty shouldn't be as bad (The harder you tried for peace, the less the penalty would be.) Also, if they make an open agreement and break their word war should be an option as well.
I like the idea of the infamy system, but I like the idea of being allowed to declare war if you have valid cause even if they don't have a lot of infamy. Like, if you have a border dispute and try to settle it by peaceful means but fail and go to war, the penalty shouldn't be as bad (The harder you tried for peace, the less the penalty would be.) Also, if they make an open agreement and break their word war should be an option as well.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
No casus belli system. Just a stability system in which war lowers stability. However when you declare war, you have to give a speech convincing the people that this war is for the best. If the people (aka the gm) supports you in this war, the stability might even rise. This makes role playing more important.
I'll just be GMing.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I actually don't mind this idea. It sounds like a really good one.
I think that's good if you are having a subjective system like that for determining infamy.
I like the idea of being able to defend your actions in a speech (Like Ilduce said) and that would make any detailed system unneeded. This could easily be conbined with the Infamy Idea though, if the rival's infamy is X then you don't even have to defend your actions (Did we really have to defend invading the Nazis) and the closer they are to X the less defense is needed (Afghanistan, while disputed, is usually accepted, Iraq highly suspect, and Vietnam usually opposed) just to give a real life example.
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
I also think that nukes should be beefed up. What if, SCs can also contribute to 'cleanup' projects? With a LOT of patience, an irradiated territory can be restored to neutrality, and then fought over again. Had IOT4 continued through the postnuclear chapter it was something I was going to implement myself.
I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with the 'infamy' metre as described, but I agree that some sort of rep gauge would be useful.
I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with the 'infamy' metre as described, but I agree that some sort of rep gauge would be useful.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I agree with that.
The only thing I didn't like about it was that it didn't incorporate dispute. While a deranged leader is cause for war, its not the only cause.
If we combined this with Ilduce's idea, it would be simple and good.
I don't. Anyone could make a speech, and say public opinion supports war, etc. So the part where the penalty will decrease if you convince your populace is kinda redundant, because you can always manufacture popular support in this kind of game.
Clean up projects should alright. Though, I personally don't want to keep track of too many projects going on at the same time.
But you see, I don't want wars to break out or almost break out every turn, as in Ideology Wars and almost every past IOTs. And territorial/ideological disputes are a dime a dozen in IOT.
GhostWriter16
Deity
You misunderstand, its up to YOU if the speech works, not up to him. You have to roleplay as the populace.
But what if there's no other way to resolve the problem?
That's why I like a progressive system where attempting a peaceful resolution is rewarded, and the more you try, the less the truly inevitable war hurts you.
Too much potential for bias and/or accusation of bias.
Then go to war, take the territories you want, take the infamy.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
no stability. causes bulli is the preferred option. if you wage too many unjust wars one or more province break away and is annexed by another power or form their own nation. you need three unjust wars before they break away. and its cumulative.
say if the..uh.. venetian war was unjust, the Byzantine peopel wouldn't like it. then you declare war on Tibet, people dislike the state. and finally if you declare war aganst one other country, one province has a chance of breaking away. the capital province is immune. (but you wont last long with just one province...)
say if the..uh.. venetian war was unjust, the Byzantine peopel wouldn't like it. then you declare war on Tibet, people dislike the state. and finally if you declare war aganst one other country, one province has a chance of breaking away. the capital province is immune. (but you wont last long with just one province...)
GhostWriter16
Deity
Valid.
I agree there should probably be some infamy penalty, because anyone who goes to war for their own benefit, even if "Justified" will probably take some.
But say I'm the CSA, and I go to war with the USA over a legitimate dispute over Virginia. Let's say China on the other side of the world invades Mongolia just because they want it. I should gain less infamy than China.
Similar threads
