IOT Developmental Thread

[Sonereal]

OVER 9000 PLAYERS!

I'm using the IOTE map so the map should fill up relatively fast.

 

[Double A]

...

ATLANTIS!

...

TIMES 900!



Incidentally, I've had a lot of chocolate in the past hour.

 

[ilduce349]

I have continued construction on my IOT.
It will begin in 1800 and end towards the modern era (if we have time).

 

[NedimNapoleon]

The finished resource map

Spoiler :

 

[Double A]

I know where I'm starting.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Mother Russia...right... Resources are concentrated so you will be forced to trade for other resources

 

[Double A]

Riiiiiight.

Also, you missed a province in southeast India and two south by southeast of the Caspian.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Oh...It'll be fixed

 

[Double A]

... and two of the islands that I can never tell if Japan or Russia owns. I get lost after Hokkaido.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

WTH I should get glasses

 

[Link]

... and two of the islands that I can never tell if Japan or Russia owns. I get lost after Hokkaido.

The Soviet Union annexed Japan's 4 northernmost islands after WW2 and Russia has not returned them.

 

[Double A]

 

[Turquoiside]

Announcing a new IOT that currently is unnamed. It's going to more or less be a back-to-basics IOT formed around rule amendments to recent IOTs.
Main Features/ Rule Changes:
* No more Nuclear Weapons
* An extremely basic technology that replaces Espionage and Nukes from IOT 6 and Rev IOT
* No longer will there be hundreds of islands in Oceania and the Caribbean that no one uses throughout the entire game: Many of them will be removed
* Balanced Naval and province defense system based on Technology

This will start when Nedim's new IOT ends.

Anyway, seeing as this is the developmental thread, I'll ask for help with this here. First, what era should this be in? Anything (except post-WWI) is fine with me, but that leaves a pretty broad range of time periods.

More importantly, I'm not actually sure about I'm going to balance war .

One of the problems from Rev IOT, which is the system for war I'll most likely use was that attacking early in the game didn't make much sense because you couldn't gain enough territory to make it viable. Because Rev II was postponed, one problem that never came but was definitely a problem was that attacking and defending would have usually lead to a stalemate. If the advantage wasn't gained in a war's first turn, Person A would usually have to divide his armies, about half attacking and defending. Person B would then either use most of his armies to regain lost territory, but also send more armies to attack. If he does not do this he'll most likely fall further behind in territory. The rest of B's armies willtdefend. Either way, there most likely results in both sides being shrunk down with a random assortment of territories, with the only meaningful change being less numbers on each side.

So far I've considered giving people at war 4 XPs, so they'll still have to take territory to remain at a net advantage. As well, territory settled during war produces points that can only be spent on technology, not armies.
Any suggestions?

 

[GhostWriter16]

The problem with that is that if they're claiming land, they are essentially unable to be destroyed.

I'd have a system where you get 5 XP, peace or war, but attacks cost 1/2 (Or even 1/3rd) the amount of XP that a claim by peace does.

And if you're going "Back to the Basics" you need to eliminate armies. Maybe you haven't been here long enough, but there was once a time when it was REALLY simple.

 

[Sonereal]

My lazy solution to it has been to create armies that move on a map. RIOT II was going to manage the problem by making each combat round (whether defending or attacking) cost $1 each. Making the large movement of troops very expensive, making economic pressure viable and another factor.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Moving armies is to complicated, Ideology wars, I almost died moving it, edit-->float move paste ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Turquoiside]

My lazy solution to it has been to create armies that move on a map. RIOT II was going to manage the problem by making each combat round (whether defending or attacking) cost $1 each. Making the large movement of troops very expensive, making economic pressure viable and another factor.

I'd be against this only because it seemed to nor work in IOT V and all other IOTs that used the system/

The problem with that is that if they're claiming land, they are essentially unable to be destroyed.

I'd have a system where you get 5 XP, peace or war, but attacks cost 1/2 (Or even 1/3rd) the amount of XP that a claim by peace does.

And if you're going "Back to the Basics" you need to eliminate armies. Maybe you haven't been here long enough, but there was once a time when it was REALLY simple.

Maybe as an additional limitation the newly-claimed provinces can not be permanent and be destroyed along with the nation when all pre-war terriotry is captured.

That said, your system seems like it would solve the problem if one or two free movements were allowed.

I'm not going that far back.

 

[Sonereal]

Moving armies is to complicated, Ideology wars, I almost died moving it, edit-->float move paste ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

???

Armies would be one pixel affairs on my map. Just opened up Microsoft Paint and turned on gridlines. Moving an army and paying attention to the numbers at the bottom doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

I'd be against this only because it seemed to nor work in IOT V and all other IOTs that used the system/

Hmm....adjustments must be made.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

???
Armies would be one pixel affairs on my map. Just opened up Microsoft Paint and turned on gridlines. Moving an army and paying attention to the numbers at the bottom doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

Easy for you, I used drawn units, remember, red army, German army, Us army style...

 

[Sonereal]

Easy for you, I used drawn units, remember, red army, German army, Us army style...

Ouch.