IOT Developmental Thread
- Thread starter Joecoolyo
- Start date
Omega124
Challenging Fate
So, why would he pick Chagatai over Og?
I'm probably going to go with the 'nad strike to butterfly out Mongol intervention in Europe. Humorous yet effective.
I'm probably going to go with the 'nad strike to butterfly out Mongol intervention in Europe. Humorous yet effective.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
Eldest legit son, he was leaning towards Chagatai until 1223. 4 years before his death...
Og could get his arm cut off or something.
But really though, does it matter? You can rewrite all of history. You don't need to come up with some stupid excuse for the Mongols never expanding because you can make the Mongols never exist. You could turn Mongolia into a crater if you really wanted.
But really though, does it matter? You can rewrite all of history. You don't need to come up with some stupid excuse for the Mongols never expanding because you can make the Mongols never exist. You could turn Mongolia into a crater if you really wanted.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
Lets not undermine impressive military leaders. Chagatai was chosen, Ogedie and Jochi, his two other sons decide to attempt to overthrow Chagatai and a civil war in Mongolia begins over who should be Khan.
As a result China uprises, and once Ogedie becomes Khan, he retakes China, rather then invading Europe. This means that Mongolia would have been as great as they were, but would have never reached Europe...
(However Kublia could still reach Russia and establish the Golden Horde)
As a result China uprises, and once Ogedie becomes Khan, he retakes China, rather then invading Europe. This means that Mongolia would have been as great as they were, but would have never reached Europe...
(However Kublia could still reach Russia and establish the Golden Horde)
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
shotty being Canada, the pm invading the states (and winning)
Couldn't you give me a few more southern provinces to make the border look a bit nicer?
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
I was going to but then I realized Greater South Africa just doesn't care.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
Whos making a Cold war IOT with the city system, Im currently making a map with alot of European provinces (Cold war Borders) and cities, so if anyone needs it let me know
l AM A PC, THEREFORE LOGIC IS INVALID
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
I DO!
It will probably start in June...
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
I'll post it in a half hour, Im finishing it, it will be a bit different, capitals of the province will have special building sprites (Berlin wont have an ordinary city icon it will have a small Reichstag icon)
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
Try to see if you can divide berlin into two cities, to represent east and west Berlin...
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
Ok, also, should I divide Korea
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
yes please. My one starts in 1949, so a Korean war may be one of the early issues for the leaders
MaxaTheGreat
Feel Prussian Iron!
I FINALLY finished the map for IOT:AoD. Can't believe it took me that long...
So anyways, will World of Trade start soon? If so, I'll wait, since I don't even have much of the rules figued out.
So anyways, will World of Trade start soon? If so, I'll wait, since I don't even have much of the rules figued out.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
I FINALLY finished the map for IOT:AoD. Can't believe it took me that long...
So anyways, will World of Trade start soon? If so, I'll wait, since I don't even have much of the rules figued out.
I PM'd him a while ago and he said June.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
@nedim: are you posting the map anytime soon?
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
April's almost over, so I figure I'm overdue for a status report.
I still have my own schedule to sort out, but I may be able to start in May if there aren't too many competing features and I get enough confirmations from the veterans.
So: war. The 'strategic map' option seems popular, so it'll definitely be a keeper. At the start of the conflict, I'll provide two maps: one detailing all the territories impugned, and the actual battlefield. Players' victories and defeats in different regions translate into change of lands. I'm still trying to figure out how to determine the end of the match beyond total victory, since given the scale of the playing field, annihilating every enemy soldier is too tedious.
Here are some ideas, in descending order of complexity:
A. - The "Schlieffen Plan" approach. The players each provide a single plan with all the nuanced details and I butt them against each other. Continue until either a) all orders are fulfilled or b) there aren't enough troops left to carry them out. Can reduce the war to a single update.
B. - A tug-of-war style in which the battlefield is divvied up into different regions. The war is conducted in rounds, with players battling over specific regions each round; the front line fluctuates based on who wins what region that round. The war ends after a set number of turns (rough estimate of 3-5), or if one player wins all objectives. Players can adjust their strategy as the situation evolves.
C. - The limited forces option. Similar to B., except the troops committed at the outset must last for the entire war. Casualties are not replenished each round, making effective tactics that much more critical.
All wars last either until victory, time limit, or when all parties agree to a cessation of hostilities. Belligerents revert to a state of peace. Any further aggressive action without casus belli incurs a reputation hit.
Then we have the RNG. I'm debating whether to continue to IOT4's three-per-turn allowance, or up that number to allow for either more attacks, or stronger individual assaults.
My basic formula is a roll range of 1-10 with a starting multiplier of 1. Combining action points (if we use them) adds 10% efficiency each (so 1.3 with the standing three, 1.5 with five). Additional modifiers are then applied based on roleplay criteria.
Examples:
* Radiological contamination: The higher the radioactivity, the worse armies perform. Kaetif soldiers have varying mitigating effects in yellow zones, but all armies are still impaired by red zones.
* Topography: Defenders often have a better understanding of the lay of the land than the invaders. A nation in control of Switzerland, for example, will be able to use the mountainous landscape for a substantial defensive advantage. Conversely, sending in tanks against more simply equipped partisans in Poland offers the attacker a mobility bonus.
* Element of surprise: The enemy will be worse in response if it isn't expecting an attack. Night-time raids, airborne incursions, amphibious infiltration, all offer a leg up over the defender. As the war drags on and defence readiness on both sides increases, however, such attacks will gradually lose effectiveness.
* Quantity and quality: Both large, unruly hordes and high-tech commandos offer small bonuses based on the inherent advantages of each. Beware, however, of slipping into
* Unsubstantiated claims: Players who make unfounded boasts about their supercarriers or ten-million-man armies may be unpleasantly surprised when the battlefield proves their wonder weapons either impractical, or downright fabrications. Don't be so eager to start an arms race if you can't back the threat up.
* National morale: Happy soldiers and an enthusiastic citizenry translates into forward momentum. Conversely, the war machine may be working at 110%, but if the people firing the equipment are dispirited, don't expect encouraging results. Again, watch reputation.
Speaking of reputation, here are some ways in which it can change:
* Diplomacy: Durr. Honourable dealings garnish praise. Inconsistent policy leads to suspicion. Nations that keep their word are valued over oath-breakers.
* Domestic policy: Nations that consistently abuse their own populace are unlikely to make friends. Kaetif policies will likely remain non-variables until a general world attitude emerges.
* Warfare: Wars of defence, UN-sanctioned interventions, and other "justifiable" conflicts will not hurt as much as unwarranted aggression. Note, however, that whatever the cause, only the most bloodthirsty of nations will not eventually tire of continued combat.
* Global representation: A leader's behaviour on the world forum can go a long way in influencing the nation's perception by its neighbours. Hey, politicians are people too.
Nuclear weapons
I want to make them attainable, but after scrapping the improvements system I'm not sure how to do it.
Nukes can be used both strategically in the same way as IOT4, and can also be deployed tactically to advantage in combat. Tactical nukes -may- avoid absolute territorial contamination, but are more likely to create Yellow Zone levels of radiation; too many nukes in a single province will turn it red. Strategic nukes will destroy entire territories the same as always.
Development and use of atomics will lead to a reputation hit the same as before (somewhat less for tactical warheads).
Lastly, the world map. There will be two, one for political divisions, and one for the World Radiological Index. Severe contamination will be demarcated on both maps for ease of reference.
It's been ten years since IOT4, so how much do we want to change? I can possibly adjust the landmass in reaction to global warming/cooling, although I aim to keep the same number of territories. I'm also looking into expanding the already discouraging levels of radiation; how far do people feel I should add to the hurt?
I still have my own schedule to sort out, but I may be able to start in May if there aren't too many competing features and I get enough confirmations from the veterans.
So: war. The 'strategic map' option seems popular, so it'll definitely be a keeper. At the start of the conflict, I'll provide two maps: one detailing all the territories impugned, and the actual battlefield. Players' victories and defeats in different regions translate into change of lands. I'm still trying to figure out how to determine the end of the match beyond total victory, since given the scale of the playing field, annihilating every enemy soldier is too tedious.
Here are some ideas, in descending order of complexity:
A. - The "Schlieffen Plan" approach. The players each provide a single plan with all the nuanced details and I butt them against each other. Continue until either a) all orders are fulfilled or b) there aren't enough troops left to carry them out. Can reduce the war to a single update.
B. - A tug-of-war style in which the battlefield is divvied up into different regions. The war is conducted in rounds, with players battling over specific regions each round; the front line fluctuates based on who wins what region that round. The war ends after a set number of turns (rough estimate of 3-5), or if one player wins all objectives. Players can adjust their strategy as the situation evolves.
C. - The limited forces option. Similar to B., except the troops committed at the outset must last for the entire war. Casualties are not replenished each round, making effective tactics that much more critical.
All wars last either until victory, time limit, or when all parties agree to a cessation of hostilities. Belligerents revert to a state of peace. Any further aggressive action without casus belli incurs a reputation hit.
Then we have the RNG. I'm debating whether to continue to IOT4's three-per-turn allowance, or up that number to allow for either more attacks, or stronger individual assaults.
My basic formula is a roll range of 1-10 with a starting multiplier of 1. Combining action points (if we use them) adds 10% efficiency each (so 1.3 with the standing three, 1.5 with five). Additional modifiers are then applied based on roleplay criteria.
Examples:
* Radiological contamination: The higher the radioactivity, the worse armies perform. Kaetif soldiers have varying mitigating effects in yellow zones, but all armies are still impaired by red zones.
* Topography: Defenders often have a better understanding of the lay of the land than the invaders. A nation in control of Switzerland, for example, will be able to use the mountainous landscape for a substantial defensive advantage. Conversely, sending in tanks against more simply equipped partisans in Poland offers the attacker a mobility bonus.
* Element of surprise: The enemy will be worse in response if it isn't expecting an attack. Night-time raids, airborne incursions, amphibious infiltration, all offer a leg up over the defender. As the war drags on and defence readiness on both sides increases, however, such attacks will gradually lose effectiveness.
* Quantity and quality: Both large, unruly hordes and high-tech commandos offer small bonuses based on the inherent advantages of each. Beware, however, of slipping into
* Unsubstantiated claims: Players who make unfounded boasts about their supercarriers or ten-million-man armies may be unpleasantly surprised when the battlefield proves their wonder weapons either impractical, or downright fabrications. Don't be so eager to start an arms race if you can't back the threat up.
* National morale: Happy soldiers and an enthusiastic citizenry translates into forward momentum. Conversely, the war machine may be working at 110%, but if the people firing the equipment are dispirited, don't expect encouraging results. Again, watch reputation.
Speaking of reputation, here are some ways in which it can change:
* Diplomacy: Durr. Honourable dealings garnish praise. Inconsistent policy leads to suspicion. Nations that keep their word are valued over oath-breakers.
* Domestic policy: Nations that consistently abuse their own populace are unlikely to make friends. Kaetif policies will likely remain non-variables until a general world attitude emerges.
* Warfare: Wars of defence, UN-sanctioned interventions, and other "justifiable" conflicts will not hurt as much as unwarranted aggression. Note, however, that whatever the cause, only the most bloodthirsty of nations will not eventually tire of continued combat.
* Global representation: A leader's behaviour on the world forum can go a long way in influencing the nation's perception by its neighbours. Hey, politicians are people too.
Nuclear weapons I want to make them attainable, but after scrapping the improvements system I'm not sure how to do it.
Nukes can be used both strategically in the same way as IOT4, and can also be deployed tactically to advantage in combat. Tactical nukes -may- avoid absolute territorial contamination, but are more likely to create Yellow Zone levels of radiation; too many nukes in a single province will turn it red. Strategic nukes will destroy entire territories the same as always.
Development and use of atomics will lead to a reputation hit the same as before (somewhat less for tactical warheads).
Lastly, the world map. There will be two, one for political divisions, and one for the World Radiological Index. Severe contamination will be demarcated on both maps for ease of reference.
It's been ten years since IOT4, so how much do we want to change? I can possibly adjust the landmass in reaction to global warming/cooling, although I aim to keep the same number of territories. I'm also looking into expanding the already discouraging levels of radiation; how far do people feel I should add to the hurt?
