CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
I'm working on that.
IOT Developmental Thread
- Thread starter Joecoolyo
- Start date
I'm working on that.
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
If it's not bogged down with all the tedious mechanics the latest slew have been, I'll consider it.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
I think a good way to measure mechanics' and players' tolerance for them is a look at the various games. Sons of Mars and IM had fairly high signups but lots of people dropped out(only to appear in another game!) so those are too complex.
/the fox cries
/the fox cries
mechaerik
Tuturuu!
The fact that i've never GM'd before (never Ford or Chrysler'd before either) means the mechanics would probably have to be simple.
Not anywhere near as complex as some of the NES's are. And really, once you figured out how it all worked orders only took a few min to make and send.
I've been away from IOT-land for a while - anyone care to tell me which ones are running right now, or will start soon?
mechaerik
Tuturuu!
After some discussion, I decided to shelve plans for Red October and instead work on a War of the Roses themed IOT, on this map of the British Isles:
The economy would be simple: a flat £100 per province per turn. This money can be used to recruit armies, build navies, bribe neutral provinces, or just be banked.
The military system would be more complicated. Armies are not pooled, they are represented as units on the map. Armies are divided into four types, navies three. Armies can be raised anywhere in your territory, but only one can be raised per province per turn. Same with Navies and coastal sea zones. Armies have two stats, Attack and Defense. If two units attack each other, a coin is flipped to see who becomes the attacker and who the defender. Navies have only one stat. Combat is determined by an RNG. Upper limit of RNG presently undecided, possibly 10, maybe 6 or 20.
Land Forces:
I haven't developed navies as much:
I think this is good so far. Any comments? Overly complicated, not complicated enough? Suggestions, concerns, criticisms?
Spoiler :
The economy would be simple: a flat £100 per province per turn. This money can be used to recruit armies, build navies, bribe neutral provinces, or just be banked.
The military system would be more complicated. Armies are not pooled, they are represented as units on the map. Armies are divided into four types, navies three. Armies can be raised anywhere in your territory, but only one can be raised per province per turn. Same with Navies and coastal sea zones. Armies have two stats, Attack and Defense. If two units attack each other, a coin is flipped to see who becomes the attacker and who the defender. Navies have only one stat. Combat is determined by an RNG. Upper limit of RNG presently undecided, possibly 10, maybe 6 or 20.
Land Forces:
Spoiler :
I haven't developed navies as much:
Spoiler :
I think this is good so far. Any comments? Overly complicated, not complicated enough? Suggestions, concerns, criticisms?
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
Certain cities like London should get higher incomes...
mythmonster2
BEC NOIR! RUN!
Seems nice and easy to get into, although I agree that some provinces should be higher-income to bring in some action. On the other hand, you'll have to find a way to make sure a player doesn't start with one of those, or maybe even make it so the player has to start with one of those, kind of like a capital city.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
Well one side could be the current monarch, who controls London, and the others are the various nobles interesting in becoming King.
SouthernKing
crickety cricket
Good ideas.
I am currently working on the final map for Gangland. Suggestions for neighborhoods/landmarks/other aspects of Imperial City are welcome.
I am currently working on the final map for Gangland. Suggestions for neighborhoods/landmarks/other aspects of Imperial City are welcome.
mechaerik
Tuturuu!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus-Malus
Yes, I considered making some provinces higher value, but its harder to keep track of and could be abusable. I'd also rather not limit players' starting areas. And if the ruler of a certain territory had a bonus, then the first person to join would take it.
Alexander IOT
Concept: Alexander is dead, his empire has fallen into chaos. You start as a successor state to his kingdom, and fight to reestablish his empire, with you on top.
Units: NA
NPCs: The Persian and Indian remants are here, they are both NPCs. You start with peace with them, and can conduct alliances and trade with them.
Each territory produces 1 IP per turn at its base. You can build marketplaces to futher the value.
Buildings:
Marketplaces: adds 2 IP to the territory.
Roads: Helps unit movement by 2.
Temple: Reduces revolt risk.
Stables: allows to build horse based units.
Archery ranges: Allows to build achery based units.
Wonders: Each provide a certian empire wide bonus. More info later.
Trade: Two neighboring land empires, or ones border each other by sea can trade. Build a trade vessel, and send them back and forth. The builder of the unit recieves 3 IP, while the other person recives 1.
Thoughts so far?
mechaerik
Tuturuu!
Forgot to mention, the map is based off a map i found off ParadoxPlaza, made by the user "Fiftypence" and used with permission.
I just replaced the white background with a blue one and added the sea zones. The sea zones are based on the UK's shipping zones.
I just replaced the white background with a blue one and added the sea zones. The sea zones are based on the UK's shipping zones.
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
Basically, the less numbers I have to keep track of, the happier I am. If I want to play a full-fledged TBS, I have buckets of computer games that'll make the calculations faster.
To me, IOT is a game of the imagination more so than anything else. I recognize the need for some set algorithms to keep the more eccentric players in check, but whatever's delegated to statistics becomes one less narrative device. Call me lazy, call me inflexible, call me too anarchic, but I maintain that the simpler the game, the faster the pace, and the easier it is on both the players and the GM.
I guess the issue I take is that early IOT was a game of the mind, a skirmish of wits (if I can be so generous), and now it's evolved into a somewhat depersonalized board game. I'm not saying that's bad, but I think it makes it less accessible. That's why my only participation post-IOT4 was your honourable-if-tragically-short IOT6, and why the sequel I'm working on places such a heavy emphasis on roleplay to determine hard numbers. IOT3 had maybe two real wars on a minuscule scale, but the whole international terrorism scenario was a lot of fun, and it was done nigh exclusively through inter-player textual development.
But of course, this all boils down to a matter of taste.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
I've noticed that many players just leave orders, and no RP. Two things destroy IOTs
1. No roleplay
2. Inability of the GM to keep up
The need isn't for basic IOT's, more stuff equals more fun, but we need more roleplay, not just a small reward system but something to get it going
1. No roleplay
2. Inability of the GM to keep up
The need isn't for basic IOT's, more stuff equals more fun, but we need more roleplay, not just a small reward system but something to get it going
