- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
That's the joke.
IOT Rev II actually has a rule about good roleplaying=in-game reward for the best roleplayer of a given update. Nothing big but something's better than no bonus I suppose.
IOT Developmental Thread
- Thread starter Joecoolyo
- Start date
That's the joke.
IOT Rev II actually has a rule about good roleplaying=in-game reward for the best roleplayer of a given update. Nothing big but something's better than no bonus I suppose.
Hmm... that can work.
Another problem is defensive armies. I want to keep them in a national pool so it'd be easier to manage, but how should I figure out how many comes to the defence of a province if it's attacked? In IOTVI, all idle armies defend, which makes it horribly unbalanced in favor of turtlers. What should I do? Divide the defenders among provinces which are attacked? Or something else?
In my game roleplaying will decide what sort of events you get.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
The penalty the overtly large defensive armies have in IOT Rev is that not all of them actually get to see combat because there are only three combat rounds. This, combined by a "victory" roll with is modified by a myriad of factors, means the defender doesn't always have an a huge advantage. Just a nice advantage.
Though, dividing them evenly across attacked territories would give another good reason for attacking multiple territories instead of one at a time so that works well too.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
Is Rev II gonna be in the 2000's if it is Im just going to continue playing with Yugoslavia
EDIT: What nation should I pick in Tailless
EDIT: What nation should I pick in Tailless
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Rev II will be in the late 80s or early 90s. Depends on when I start it.
Lighthearter
President of the United States
In IOTE that's what I do. All defensive armies are divided among the enemy's attacks, with a slight priority to the capital if necessary. You can specify territories to defend with specific numbers of troops though.
I'm not doing anything with roleplaying. I toyed with the idea of writing narratives for particularly epic moments, but I think that that's the players' place.
-L
I think Sonereal is going to transfer our nations over from Rev I. If that's so I'm going to continue playing the USSR.
This sounds good.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
I want to give players a non-violent arm in international affairs. Espionage was supposed to have been that but there's no good way to balance it and make it fun and it almost felt separate from the game so I cut it out.
But trade agreements, infrastructure, loans, and embargoes? Those are things a beast player will need to get ahead and they're all weapons. Trade Agreements? Sure, they give both players money but what happens when one person wants to cancel it and the other doesn't and no expiration date was signed?
Infrastructure? Perfect way to make certain territory worth a lot more. You don't need to control all of North America when you can build infrastructure. Not only does infrastructure INCREASE the money the territory produces, but it gets cheaper to build infra in that territory as more is built AND each level of infra produces more than the last. It'd cost say, $50 for the first level and only add +$1 to the territory but the second only costs $45 and adds +$2 meaning for $95, you have a territory producing $4 instead of two different territories with the first level of infrastructure which costs $100. The third level? $40 and it goes on to $20. What can possibly go wrong?
After all, you're RICH! You have an army the Persians would be proud of so what can possibly happen? Your super-city is built square in the middle of your territory so no attacking armies can even get it right away and-
One nuke. That's all it takes. Your giant army? Just got a lot more expensive because your profit just shrunk incredibly. Not only that, but the destruction of your factories affects trade globally because trade is based on the average of the two nation's incomes minus distance.
Loans? Self-explanatory.
Embargoes? You can actually put an embargo up to 95% against someone you're trading with. Since trade agreements can't be canceled without consent of both players or without an expiration date, this will hurt a smaller economy a lot more than the larger economy.
War is still all too possible and real in IOT Rev II. Fighting an offensive war is costly. For instance, armies, navies, and all WMDs besides chemical weapons have a maintenance cost and sending your armies and navies (will be renamed fleets) costs 1 dollar each making waging war expensive. The defender isn't completely off the hook either. Defending, in the long run, is far more damaging to the economy. Battles fought in provinces cause economic damage. Not only that, but the each turn, that territory only produces money to pay off the damage. Infra isn't destroyed in battles but if it only produces $4 a turn and there's $16 of economic damage, it'll take four turns if the nation doesn't throw in money from the bank. Not only that, but the territory can't build more infrastructure until it pays off any economic damage.
This implies to actually moving armies into neutral territories so you do get more flies with honey than with vinegar. So, what's the point of going to war?
Damage is damage. If you don't intend to take any territory, going in and causing a ton of economic damage is the way to go. Economic damage is based on # of Defender Armies lost multiplied by the infrastructure level (unless the level's zero, in which case it's still 1). So, lose three armies defending in a battle in a territory with 1 infra? $3 million dollars. Lose ten armies defending in a battle in your super 10 infra city? $100 dollars.
War between a economic giant and small power is more or less the same as any IOT since the giant can afford to send in giant armies so how do two similar strength powers fight? Taking out loans can be a deciding factor in a lot of wars. You know what you can do with a $100 loan?
Build 50 armies or have enough money to maintain a 100 for a turn. You can can pay a 100 armies to attack with a $100.
----
I got to go. Was going to write more but no time right now.
But trade agreements, infrastructure, loans, and embargoes? Those are things a beast player will need to get ahead and they're all weapons. Trade Agreements? Sure, they give both players money but what happens when one person wants to cancel it and the other doesn't and no expiration date was signed?
Infrastructure? Perfect way to make certain territory worth a lot more. You don't need to control all of North America when you can build infrastructure. Not only does infrastructure INCREASE the money the territory produces, but it gets cheaper to build infra in that territory as more is built AND each level of infra produces more than the last. It'd cost say, $50 for the first level and only add +$1 to the territory but the second only costs $45 and adds +$2 meaning for $95, you have a territory producing $4 instead of two different territories with the first level of infrastructure which costs $100. The third level? $40 and it goes on to $20. What can possibly go wrong?
After all, you're RICH! You have an army the Persians would be proud of so what can possibly happen? Your super-city is built square in the middle of your territory so no attacking armies can even get it right away and-
One nuke. That's all it takes. Your giant army? Just got a lot more expensive because your profit just shrunk incredibly. Not only that, but the destruction of your factories affects trade globally because trade is based on the average of the two nation's incomes minus distance.
Loans? Self-explanatory.
Embargoes? You can actually put an embargo up to 95% against someone you're trading with. Since trade agreements can't be canceled without consent of both players or without an expiration date, this will hurt a smaller economy a lot more than the larger economy.
War is still all too possible and real in IOT Rev II. Fighting an offensive war is costly. For instance, armies, navies, and all WMDs besides chemical weapons have a maintenance cost and sending your armies and navies (will be renamed fleets) costs 1 dollar each making waging war expensive. The defender isn't completely off the hook either. Defending, in the long run, is far more damaging to the economy. Battles fought in provinces cause economic damage. Not only that, but the each turn, that territory only produces money to pay off the damage. Infra isn't destroyed in battles but if it only produces $4 a turn and there's $16 of economic damage, it'll take four turns if the nation doesn't throw in money from the bank. Not only that, but the territory can't build more infrastructure until it pays off any economic damage.
This implies to actually moving armies into neutral territories so you do get more flies with honey than with vinegar. So, what's the point of going to war?
Damage is damage. If you don't intend to take any territory, going in and causing a ton of economic damage is the way to go. Economic damage is based on # of Defender Armies lost multiplied by the infrastructure level (unless the level's zero, in which case it's still 1). So, lose three armies defending in a battle in a territory with 1 infra? $3 million dollars. Lose ten armies defending in a battle in your super 10 infra city? $100 dollars.
War between a economic giant and small power is more or less the same as any IOT since the giant can afford to send in giant armies so how do two similar strength powers fight? Taking out loans can be a deciding factor in a lot of wars. You know what you can do with a $100 loan?
Build 50 armies or have enough money to maintain a 100 for a turn. You can can pay a 100 armies to attack with a $100.
----
I got to go. Was going to write more but no time right now.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Some extra stuff I forgot to put in the post:
Players can't decommission a lot of their armed forces or WMD stockpiles at at time. Only one army and one fleet at a time. Meanwhile, player's can decommission two nuclear weapons and one biological weapon per turn at a time. Entire chemical weapon stock can be thrown out simply because they don't have maintenance.
It's possible to remove one level of infrastructure a turn as well to allow for "scorched earth" warfare.
Thoughts?
Players can't decommission a lot of their armed forces or WMD stockpiles at at time. Only one army and one fleet at a time. Meanwhile, player's can decommission two nuclear weapons and one biological weapon per turn at a time. Entire chemical weapon stock can be thrown out simply because they don't have maintenance.
It's possible to remove one level of infrastructure a turn as well to allow for "scorched earth" warfare.
Thoughts?
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
If you're going for scorched earth and have nukes you want to decommission, you can nuke the places you want to destroy.
No because using a nuke causes economic damage and using it against yourself is wasteful. Plus, atomic bombs only destroy half of the infrastructure in a territory no matter how many times its used so 4-2-1-1-1 over and over again.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I honestly would like to see Rev II started fresh with new nations so I could get a real fresh start....
MaxaTheGreat
Feel Prussian Iron!
I agree, I'd like to have my own nation in Rev, instead of picking up a NPC.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
I'll think about. Depending on the amount of interest (which there seems like there's a lot of at the moment), I'll wipe out NPCs.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
That will still happen. But the American League, South Africa, etc. will disappear. Any player who doesn't want to play IOT Rev II will have their nation disbanded and of course, any player who wants to start anew would have their nation disbanded.
So everyone who carries over will have a huge advantage. Probably.
I think you should only make the transition during a time of peace and low tensions, or else a war could get completely flipped around, or someone could start a war as they would get some kind of advantage in Rev II they didn't have already.
I think you should only make the transition during a time of peace and low tensions, or else a war could get completely flipped around, or someone could start a war as they would get some kind of advantage in Rev II they didn't have already.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
The transition will take place during a peace because nations like Khitan or the USSR will be SCREWED over by the economic system because of their large armies.
