- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Because I want it to be a little present for President's Day
Although if most people want it on Sunday I can have that happen.
But if you started....today....two days before most of us go back to school/work.
IOT Developmental Thread
- Thread starter Joecoolyo
- Start date
But if you started....today....two days before most of us go back to school/work.
MaxaTheGreat
Feel Prussian Iron!
That's two votes for Sunday. I hope that's not everybody who's going to play IOTC...
And I don't think I can start by today
And I don't think I can start by today
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
Im playing
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
I was thinking about dropping the chemical weapon line from my WMD listings. A.) They're not that used and B.) They don't fit to scale with the other two WMD programs.
I don't know what I'm going to replace it with yet.
Etiam, I think I'm going to use air bases, missile silos, and air defense. The reasoning behind this is that it can make putting a missile silo 90 miles off the coast of Florida far more beneficial than putting one in Luxembourg if you're trying to strike at Kentucky.
I don't know what I'm going to replace it with yet.
Etiam, I think I'm going to use air bases, missile silos, and air defense. The reasoning behind this is that it can make putting a missile silo 90 miles off the coast of Florida far more beneficial than putting one in Luxembourg if you're trying to strike at Kentucky.
My theory of their unusedness is because when you started the game they were crap, so everyone invested into bio or nuclear, and of course, tier 2 is better than tier 1 of anything, so no one's going to start now when it's already too late.
MaxaTheGreat
Feel Prussian Iron!
Note about IOTC:
Some people might stab at the large wheat areas and rack up a ton of food for settlers, and then 'explode' onto the money-making resources. This gives them a huge advantage in winning the game, so I'd like to emphasize wars over colonial power to keep the game interesting.
Rules are double-checked and I've worked a bit with armies. I'll have it finished by Sunday I think.
Some people might stab at the large wheat areas and rack up a ton of food for settlers, and then 'explode' onto the money-making resources. This gives them a huge advantage in winning the game, so I'd like to emphasize wars over colonial power to keep the game interesting.
"So how's IOTC going, Maxa?"
Rules are double-checked and I've worked a bit with armies. I'll have it finished by Sunday I think.
MaxaTheGreat
Feel Prussian Iron!
You have to strike with armies before they explode, because they'll be dirt poor.
I'm thinking it will be unbalanced, but at the very least I hope someone would make a better version of IOTC and follow in my footsteps. Or something like that.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
MaxaTheGreat
Feel Prussian Iron!
I also thought I should say something about armies:
-Armies are pooled, like in IOTE, and can attack anywhere. Your only limit in attacks is how many armies you have.
-Any armies not used in attacking goes to defending, in no order whatsoever. So a Tier III army could appear first, even though it's your newest army. Once your unused armies run out, any other attacks on your empire are undefended.
-Undefended provinces get a -25% penalty, and colonies get a -50% penalty. Thus, having no armies is not a good move, because stronger opponents will be able to gobble up your provinces.
Also, armies cost Gold, and only Gold colonies produce Gold, so my 'explosion' strategy is very vulnerable until the explosion phase.
-Armies are pooled, like in IOTE, and can attack anywhere. Your only limit in attacks is how many armies you have.
-Any armies not used in attacking goes to defending, in no order whatsoever. So a Tier III army could appear first, even though it's your newest army. Once your unused armies run out, any other attacks on your empire are undefended.
-Undefended provinces get a -25% penalty, and colonies get a -50% penalty. Thus, having no armies is not a good move, because stronger opponents will be able to gobble up your provinces.
Also, armies cost Gold, and only Gold colonies produce Gold, so my 'explosion' strategy is very vulnerable until the explosion phase.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Solid system.
Since I'm not familiar with your complete ruleset, this looks pretty solid.
Why only a -25% penalty? Why wouldn't the undefended province fall completly?
Hmm.
MaxaTheGreat
Feel Prussian Iron!
Umm, the penalty goes to the defenders in the province, not the armies.
I guess I should change it to 50%, or maybe even 75%.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
MaxaTheGreat
Feel Prussian Iron!
I don't understand....the provinces defend themselves but armies help?
True, but the provinces are weak. Should I just change the penalty to 100%?
EDIT: Just did a test with one nation having 6 tier I armies vs. one nation with no armies.
End result: The nation with no armies got completely torn up, and all its colonies were lost.
So for now, I think the penalties are fine, but now im testing with 6 on 6 tier I's...
MaxaTheGreat
Feel Prussian Iron!
Ok, I did 6 on 7. Apparently, whoever attacks first usually will win(Every attack was a success)
Then I added a +5 Bonus when defending, and the 6 armies only won once, and then the 7 armies that won tore up everything.
Then I added a +5 Bonus when defending, and the 6 armies only won once, and then the 7 armies that won tore up everything.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Since there will be no XPs in RIOT II, I'm using the good ol' "march your army and take what you want" method and the "bribe them" method.
There's pros and cons to either. If you march your divisions in, then there's a good chance you can defeat the disorganized militias but on the flipside, you'll cause economic damage and there'll be a diminishing chance of revolt each turn. Bribing costs money and the chance of success is moderate (depending on how much they get). There's no chance of revolt if you take a territory through bribing local leaders and no need to worry about economic damage.
There's pros and cons to either. If you march your divisions in, then there's a good chance you can defeat the disorganized militias but on the flipside, you'll cause economic damage and there'll be a diminishing chance of revolt each turn. Bribing costs money and the chance of success is moderate (depending on how much they get). There's no chance of revolt if you take a territory through bribing local leaders and no need to worry about economic damage.
The old "long term vs short term" dilemma...
