"Don't Cry for me Argentina!"

tfw Argentina is the dev thread, Dev Thread is the announcement thread, and Announcement Thread is dead, Jim.

 

honestly I will never understand what possesses people to look at the HoI4 map and think, "this is a good map for an IOT!". like. the sheer distances involved mean that there is little to no touching points between the players. and, so it happens that, as the current model of IOTs is, conflict between players is necessary for engagement. for the better or the worse, anyway. An IOT without player engagement beyond sending rules is moribund.

please stop using video game maps for games that are tabletop, in general - also really try not to be a game-like IOT because you can always boot Stellaris or what-ever instead of waiting 5 weeks for an update. that's all.

 

because it's easier than making their own maps or actually making a hoi4 mod

 

there's a literal IOT map thread you can steal one that doesn't look godawfully ugly and unworkable for an IOT

 

...next time maybe a polite "we suggest this map" (hopefully one of the ones that link seem to expired) instead of 'passive'-aggressive stuff?

Anyway: we will need to talk about the economic rule set so be sure to give advice on the Development thread...

 

I am in the least "passive" about what I feel regarding the question of the map - it sucks, frankly, if you do not start with a pre-made scenario, and frankly, even if you do, the way the economy works hampers it greatly.

That is, as the map represents the material reality of the game, it is also the main guide by which the entire economy of the game would work. In this sense, your economic system is - once more, without any passivity in the least - completely and irreparably broken, and it is regressive in this sense (I'd like to mention that this observation's hardly mine, and it mostly belongs to a certain mutual friend, if you will.). Anyway. Let us take the linked example, in which, each territory gives 1 CP - this being a premade scenario, it resulted into the incredibly loopsided scenario where Russia had the biggest income than any nation even after getting nerfed. With the higher density of provinces, even the "10 provinces = 1 EP" would not resolve this, as it is not a real qualitative difference. [It should be mentioned that, in comparison to the HoI4 map, the EpicIOT map looks about reasonable, except not really.] So, what would happen here, is if we have a premade start, you would have a very unbalanced, unreasonable and unrealistic game. If you don't, and players start with XX amount of territories, you would have an awfully boring game, which would have the players isolated by miles and miles of tiny little blobby territories in Europe, what's with Paradox being feckless Eurocentrists.

Oh, but also, furthermore, there is no reason to be peaceful (suits, I suppose, the initial inspiration of EU4), as the cost for expansion is prohibitive. 50 EPs for a guaranteed 1 EP would pay off...basically, never. Whereas, conquest will almost inevitably pay off, especially if it's against uncontrolled territories.

But really, at the heart of all this, is the fact that this isn't fun. It may have been 8 years ago, but things have changed. It's just a very base province-counting game, where you paint the map and engage into tedious province counting. I don't think it's even fun for the GM.

To wit, you would have to radically change the game, and frankly, discard everything so far - the map and the ruleset so far. Well, so as to not get told off as overtly critical, here are some principles that I believe, if taken, would possibly result in a better ruleset/game, or, if not better, at least new and not something from 2011:

1. To Hell With GMs: For far too long, I believe, GMs have been seen as these almighty figures that can snap out rulesets and deem results as they will, essentially. They need to be put at a certain level, where they are, well, merely arbiters, ones that can be very easily replaced if the players find them to be insufficient - or if they're gone.
   
2. Down With Rulesets (Made by GMs Alone): Once more, connected to the first point, one of the great pitfalls of IOT has been the way that the burden of creating rulesets has been shifted to GMs. This has resulted to numerous awful, terrible and regretably broken rulesets, which is expounded by the fact that there is a certain emphasis on creating a completely original ruleset, which is absolute nonsense, and I'm glad that in the last 1-2 years, the trend has shifted towards ""stealing"" from tabletop games. But, how'd you design a ruleset? The answer is simple: democratic centralism. Now, of course, this is a method that is intended to foster a disciplined working class movement, but here, specially for IOT, we need unity of action, that is to say, the ability to come at a certain decision, but also, the ability to hear all minority voices, and discuss them, and all that. It's going to be great, I'm sure. De facto, this has already happened in the past, and is, in fact, happening as we speak. What we need is to broaden this practice, so that every player in the respective game can have their say wrt rulesets.
   
3. Collective Experience: As an extension to my previous point, an IOT must become a more collective experience. We have had certain pointers as to how this may be accomplished - most importantly, the Hero High games. Even so, they have certain issues - namely, the level of off-handedness within them were, in fact, a detriment to them at a certain point of time, as the story ceased to proceed, which resulted into lack of disinterest, and with that, death of the game. What would this mean? Here, I believe it'd essentially mean that every update would be a collaborative effort between the players and the GM on the results, once more, on the principles of democratic centralism. What I feel is most important is, that the world of the GM [the update, the stats, etc], and the world of the player [RP, diplomacy, etc] currently exist in a walled state [save for certain exceptions], but that is a wall that must be demolished.

To sum it up: the IOT of the future must be a collaborative, collective effort, done by both the GM and the players together, to create the game and the experience that they desire to make as they will. Anything else would be a repetition, and I think we can't exactly afford these anymore, considering the state of IOT as it is.

 

...I was asking for simple advice, with the additional ask for any suggestive alternative maps.

 

My simple advice, then, would be to start over.

 

...the economic section? Was aiming to keep things simple for the game.

 

The economic section, and also, the map. What's simple about counting those tiny provinces in Europe, anyway? It just sounds like a pain - both for the GM and the player. It doesn't sound exceptionally attractive, is all I'm saying, and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly attractive to it in any way. Try asking around people what they wish to see/play/whatever, and then try working it out.

 

Which map you suggest?

 

I will object on point 2, that stealing and cross-pollination have always been a feature of IOTs, be it map-wise or ruleset-wise, and that the pursuit of fully original rulesets have likewise always been there. It has perhaps become more prominent in these later years when we have had a much lower relative 'density' of games, so to speak.

 

My first IOT was basically IOT VI but with province counting mechanics back in like, 2010.

 

I wasn’t going to get involved in this conversation but there’s some things being said that I disagree with so heavily that I have to respond. Lets start with the stuff I agree with. @Ailedhoo I would seriously suggest listening to this.

That map is atrocious and completely defeats the purpose of a provinced-based map (IMO). Provinces should ease the editing of maps, they should make them harder. Seriously, you'll be clicking that paint bucket tool so much your fingers will fall off. And it will make counting provinces (a core part of the economy in your game) really really annoying. Don't do this.

Completely true.

IOTs that have mechanics for both economic/diplomatic and militaristic expansion always end up with one being better than the other and that one being the one that is used by 90% of the playerbase. Avoid this by finding a better system to expand territory.

Different strokes for different strokes. Just do what you find fun but please please please try not to make it horrifically unbalanced.

Right lets get into the meat and potatoes.

1. Having almighty figures that can deem results as they will is the entire point of having a GM. Its one of the major advantages of playing an IOT over playing a Paradox game, as GMs are human they allow flexibility of the rules and can interpret players orders in unconventional ways if needed. GMing is also a lot of work, if someone tried to gamejack IOT XXIII then I'd be honestly pretty angry because I've invested so many hours and so much creative energy into that game. Trying to coup a GM is almost always going to be extremely messy. This is confounded by the fact that most people don't want to GM and the people who do want to GM rarely want to GM someone else's game. This arrangement has only been pulled off successfully once in all of IOT history (admittedly it was a pretty successful game from my understanding) but I think the material conditions (if you will) for that to be pulled off again is pretty unlikely to happen.
   
2. We already do this? Ruleset poaching is a time honoured tradition, from both other GMs and from tabletop. And good GMs always solicit feeback from players, both before the game is launched and while it is in signups. I agree that trying to craft a ruleset out of whole cloth is folly and people should base their ruleset in already proven games.
3. This was tried in the very first IOTs of yore. What happened is that when players would powergame, declare war on each other and cause a bunch of conflict. The role of GM expanded such out of the necessity of dealing with war and international conflict. But then again, that was a long time ago, perhaps it would be a good idea to revisit this sort of thing. If you or someone else is willing to run that sort of game, I'd be interested in playing.

IOT is fine. Thinking a hobby needs constant expansion in order to justify itself is Capitalism infesting your brain.

Also your essay needed a wanky and long winded title like The Assassination of Imperium Offtopicum by the Coward Game Master or Hetrodoxy: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Democratic Centralism. 0/100 see me after class.

 

Inquiry: the map you focusing on is the province or state map?

I would like suggestion for a alternative map. For instance: this was a map by TK. That said "a few" of the lines are... straight.

Spoiler TK's map :

I am open to alternative maps, ideally something that would make it easier to single province a small group of isles to enable.

 

I would suggest that you stick with the previous map but stick to a smaller segment of the world so as to make sure players will still interact, as that is central to IOT. A more regional or at most continental IOT seems like it vould have an appreciable level of additional detail as well as being less likely to have entire segments of map unclaimed by anyone Cough, coughtheentiresouthernhemisphereCough, Cough

Edit: Oh, and also, I would suggest having a system to improve and develop provinces even with just a limit of one improvement per province that could give special effects. Like wonders, maybe.

 

do it in africa because there's giant-ass empty spaces because paradox is racist

on a serious note don't actually do the latter part because it's god-damn ludicrous on the HoI4 map because improvements such as those work best on a VIDEO GAME MAP which this was designed on and we're trying to play a tabletop game on a reality undesigned for TTRPGs because HoI4 is not an IOT

ps: will reply eventually to NC

 

Beats wide empire being the only way to play, though, doesn't it?

 

Wide empire would still be the only way to play because province-counting mechanics are extremely feast or famine. Either its worth expanding, or it isn't, and when it is worth it, it is worth it beyond anything else. Its why most GMs stopped doing that after EpicIOT crashed and burned on the back of 340 Russian infantry divisions a year.

That's why simple economic systems are boring for forum games. Might as well just play Diplomacy or, better yet, Risk.