IOT Developmental Thread

[ZeletDude]

-Scratch the "one attack per enemy" rule
NAY

-Distance penalties for attacking without using overseas bases for operations
Yea

-Points system for war
Nay

-War by story
Could be cool so Yeah

-Risk style war
Yeah could be cool

-War by Civ IV
NAY

- Size of armies should effect combat
YEAH (no super armies!)

- Size of armies should be deal with in terms of units/divisions (like in Civ) rather than actual troop numbers.
Yeah

- Tactics and effects of terrain, defensive structures, etc on a military operation should be represented with some sort of combat modifier similar to Civ4 "promotions" and terrain bonuses.
Yeah

- You should be able to research stronger units (tank level 1, tank level 2,...)
Yeah

- To prevent entire armies attacking a single provinces, there should be a limit of how large a force can be in a province. Perhaps introduce a "logistics" tech, with the limit being increased every level of logistics you research.
Yeah

-War based on grid like maps
Yeah

-War based on units and a RNG rather than dice
Yeah

-War based on Rock paper scissors
Nay

-Send battle orders to GM rather than to the thread to cut down on spam
curbing expansion during war to make it possible to conquer another nation, plus to make war look less attractive
Yeah! (The GM's pm box would get spammy tho)

-Lighthearter's very complex idea for combat
Yeah


-Battle
Nay


-a system to prevent world wars always occurring
YES

 

[Tee Kay]

Funfunfun

-Scratch the "one attack per enemy" rule

YES. Replace it with a set maximum number of attacks for any number of enemies, as previously stated by me in this thread.

-Distance penalties for attacking without using overseas bases for operations

We'd need to debate the actual application of this, but YES fundamentally a good idea.

-Points system for war

YES

-War by story

That'd be a lot like NES. If you guys are up for that, then that's fine. Personally though, I'm too lazy. NO

-Risk style war

Worth considering. Consider that a YES

-War by Civ IV

Also worth considering. Consider that a YES as well (though we'll have to settle on a system in the end).

- Size of armies should effect combat

YES

- Size of armies should be deal with in terms of units/divisions (like in Civ) rather than actual troop numbers.

YES

- Tactics and effects of terrain, defensive structures, etc on a military operation should be represented with some sort of combat modifier similar to Civ4 "promotions" and terrain bonuses.

YES (Note these last two ideas are similar to "Combat by Civ4")

- You should be able to research stronger units (tank level 1, tank level 2,...)

YES

- To prevent entire armies attacking a single provinces, there should be a limit of how large a force can be in a province. Perhaps introduce a "logistics" tech, with the limit being increased every level of logistics you research.

YES (This also links with the distance penalty idea. Perhaps logistic tech could effect both.)

-War based on grid like maps (linky for further explanation)

Personally I think that makes it too complicated, considering that we may have 20+ battles going on at the same time, and managing all those battles can be a real headache, especially if only one GM handles them. However, it is worth considering. It'd make combat much more interesting. Perhaps a simplified version of the idea could be implemented. ABSTAIN.

-War based on units and a RNG rather than dice

Worth considering. Maybe this could be coupled with other ideas on combat modifiers and the grid map idea. YES

-War based on Rock paper scissors

NO

-Send battle orders to GM rather than to the thread to cut down on spam

YES

- curbing expansion during war to make it possible to conquer another nation, plus to make war look less attractive

This is why I think being able to only claim a bunch of territories ONCE at the start and making the rest of the world into NPCs is a good idea. ABSTAIN.

-Lighthearter's very complex idea for combat (linky)

Refer to comment on grid maps. ABSTAIN.

-Battle- Not sure exactly how this would be done, but it would be based on your population. Population would be based on real life, for instance, Florida would have 13 Million people, and you could maintain troops based on your population, based on your military rating, for instance: (details)

A good idea. Maybe throw in a few other modifiers as well (tech, government, war readiness level, dissent, conscription laws, etc are some I can think of while typing this). YES

Jungle: If attacking Jungle from non-Jungle territory, lose 1 unit per turn to Malaria

Arctic- If attacking in Winter, defender adds 2 to their roll

Exc. Dice would be rolled by a neutral GM, to prevent fudging.

Terrain effects are a good idea, but maybe we should leave the specifics until after we finalize the basic framework of the combat system. ABSTAIN.

Obviously, there would have to be less territories, number of troops in a territory would just be written down in MS paint. This wouldn't work with small territories, hence the need to make them bigger. However, I'm okay with that. For instance, say you have 12 troops in Florida: (examples)

Less territories -> YES

You can attack territories you are not adjacent to by air or sea, however, if attacking a coastal territory by sea, the defender adds 1 to their die rolls, if you attack an inland territory by air, they add 2.

I think we should actually represent the navies and air forces. I vote NO.

While at war, you wouldn't be able to expand (Maybe a small amount if you have a high expansion rating.)

Refer to curbing expansion idea (previously) ABSTAIN

You can attack three territories a turn. Mass invasions only count as one (For instance, say you control armies in Florida and Georgia, and want to invade Alabama. You can combine the armies and attack Alabama for just one invasion. However, this applies only to invasions of territories next to you, not sea and air invasions.

ABSTAIN but definitely something worth keeping in mind.

-a system to prevent world wars always occurring

YES. I propose a stability penalty or something similar everytime you declare war.

 

[W|M]

I'm too lazy and tired from partially reading a massive EU III aar (by TanicusFox), so my votes go towards whatever taillesskangaru voted.

 

[Tee Kay]

You trust my judgement?

 

[W|M]

When this lazy, yes, dont you? (tbh, I would trust almost anyones judgement now).

 

[Lighthearter]

-Scratch the "one attack per enemy" rule
-Distance penalties for attacking without using overseas bases for operations
-Points system for war
YEA

-War by story
Abstain - This would be hard to manage and without false modesty I'd say I'd be really good at it - just ask MathNerd or Cull. I don't think it would be exactly fair.

-Risk style war
Meh. Abstain.

-War by Civ IV
NAY

- Size of armies should effect combat
- Size of armies should be deal with in terms of units/divisions (like in Civ) rather than actual troop numbers.
- Tactics and effects of terrain, defensive structures, etc on a military operation should be represented with some sort of combat modifier similar to Civ4 "promotions" and terrain bonuses.
YEA

- You should be able to research stronger units (tank level 1, tank level 2,...)
Abstain. It messes a bit with my combat system, but I'm sure if the community wants it a workaround could be found - enhancing the Favored Enemy bonuses?

- To prevent entire armies attacking a single provinces, there should be a limit of how large a force can be in a province. Perhaps introduce a "logistics" tech, with the limit being increased every level of logistics you research.
Abstain. My Reserves mechanic works on that one.

-War based on grid like maps
HELL YEAH

-War based on units and a RNG rather than dice
YEA

-War based on Rock paper scissors
NAY

-Send battle orders to GM rather than to the thread to cut down on spam
curbing expansion during war to make it possible to conquer another nation, plus to make war look less attractive
Hmm. Sounds like a good idea, but may not be so easy to work with. Abstain.

-Lighthearter's very complex idea for combat
Of course I'm voting YEA!!


-Battle
Nay


-a system to prevent world wars always occurring
Hmm. How about a Causus Belli system? You can attack someone only if you have a Cause for War - say disputed territories, religious differences if you're a theocracy, etc. I'm sure the community could come up with some good ones. And some kind of hit to national unity or such if you attack without one. This also kinda blocks imperialist expansionism, which is good for fun but also bad for those who want to play it. Yea, in short.

- Lighthearter

 

[Zack]

-Scratch the "one attack per enemy" rule

Yes

-Distance penalties for attacking without using overseas bases for operations

Yes

-Points system for war

Yes

-War by story

No

-Risk style war

Yes - either this or Civ IV

-War by Civ IV

Yes - either this or Risk

- Size of armies should effect combat

Yes

- Size of armies should be deal with in terms of units/divisions (like in Civ) rather than actual troop numbers.

Yes

- Tactics and effects of terrain, defensive structures, etc on a military operation should be represented with some sort of combat modifier similar to Civ4 "promotions" and terrain bonuses.

Yes

- You should be able to research stronger units (tank level 1, tank level 2,...)

No

- To prevent entire armies attacking a single provinces, there should be a limit of how large a force can be in a province. Perhaps introduce a "logistics" tech, with the limit being increased every level of logistics you research.

Yes

-War based on grid like maps (linky for further explanation)

No - too complicated

-War based on units and a RNG rather than dice

Abstain - wouldn't this basically be Risk?

-War based on Rock paper scissors

No

-Send battle orders to GM rather than to the thread to cut down on spam
curbing expansion during war to make it possible to conquer another nation, plus to make war look less attractive

Yes

-Lighthearter's very complex idea for combat (linky)

No - too complicated

-Battle- Not sure exactly how this would be done, but it would be based on your population. Population would be based on real life, for instance, Florida would have 13 Million people, and you could maintain troops based on your population, based on your military rating, for instance: (details)

Yes

Jungle: If attacking Jungle from non-Jungle territory, lose 1 unit per turn to Malaria

Arctic- If attacking in Winter, defender adds 2 to their roll

Exc. Dice would be rolled by a neutral GM, to prevent fudging.

Yes - not necessarily the specifics, but the theory

Obviously, there would have to be less territories, number of troops in a territory would just be written down in MS paint. This wouldn't work with small territories, hence the need to make them bigger. However, I'm okay with that. For instance, say you have 12 troops in Florida:
Less territories and less claims per turn = Yes

You can attack territories you are not adjacent to by air or sea, however, if attacking a coastal territory by sea, the defender adds 1 to their die rolls, if you attack an inland territory by air, they add 2.

No

While at war, you wouldn't be able to expand (Maybe a small amount if you have a high expansion rating.)

Yes

You can attack three territories a turn. Mass invasions only count as one (For instance, say you control armies in Florida and Georgia, and want to invade Alabama. You can combine the armies and attack Alabama for just one invasion. However, this applies only to invasions of territories next to you, not sea and air invasions.

Yes

-a system to prevent world wars always occurring

Yes



I also propose the idea of doing combat by Hearts of Iron 2 Armageddon.

 

[Tee Kay]

Hmm. How about a Causus Belli system? You can attack someone only if you have a Cause for War - say disputed territories, religious differences if you're a theocracy, etc. I'm sure the community could come up with some good ones. And some kind of hit to national unity or such if you attack without one. This also kinda blocks imperialist expansionism, which is good for fun but also bad for those who want to play it. Yea, in short.

Yep, that's along the line of what I was thinking. It's the system used in the latest version of EUIII.

 

[W|M]

I think you should also determine the strength of the Casus Belli, so that some more nations will support ones with more reasoning (e.g. A boundary dispute is likely to get less support than declaring because of government-sponsored privateers).

 

[Tee Kay]

I also propose the idea of doing combat by Hearts of Iron 2 Armageddon.

That's rather extreme. We'll have to make a new HoI2 scenario. Though it'd be great, though.

 

[civplayah]

Scratch the "one attack per enemy" rule
Yea
Distance penalties for attacking without using overseas bases for operations
Yea
Points system for war
Abstain (don't really know what the system is)
War by story
Nay
Risk style war
Nay
War by Civ IV
Yea
Size of armies should effect combat
Yea
Size of armies should be deal with in terms of units/divisions (like in Civ) rather than actual troop
numbers.
Yea
Tactics and effects of terrain, defensive structures, etc on a military operation should be
represented with some sort of combat modifier similar to Civ4 "promotions" and terrain bonuses.
Yea
You should be able to research stronger units (tank level 1, tank level 2,...)
Nay
To prevent entire armies attacking a single provinces, there should be a limit of how large a force can be in a province. Perhaps introduce a "logistics" tech, with the limit being increased every level of logistics you research.
Nay
War based on grid like maps
Nay
War based on units and a RNG rather than dice
Yea
War based on Rock paper scissors
Nay
Send battle orders to GM rather than to the thread to cut down on spam
Yea
Curbing expansion during war to make it possible to conquer another nation, plus to make war
look less attractive
Yea
Lighthearter's very complex idea for combat (linky)
Nay

 

[GenMarshall]

Hopefully this can get entered in:

NO SURPRISE ATTACKS AGAINST ANOTHER NATION!

 

[W|M]

Or you do it for a severe penalty.

 

[GenMarshall]

No supprise attacks, period. I just had it happened to me not to long ago in IOT:II! Believe me, it was not fun seeing a big old gang-rape happening to me out of the blue with what 4-5 different nations attacking me 10 times!

 

[W|M]

I love it when a plan comes together!!!

Also, ignore my previous post.

 

[Omega124]

-Scratch the "one attack per enemy" rule
Yes, three attacks per turn, spreaded out wherever wanted.

-Distance penalties for attacking without using overseas bases for operations
Yes

-Points system for war
No

-War by story
YES!

-Risk style war
Yes

-War by Civ IV
No

- Size of armies should effect combat
Yes

- Size of armies should be deal with in terms of units/divisions (like in Civ) rather than actual troop numbers.
Yes

- Tactics and effects of terrain, defensive structures, etc on a military operation should be represented with some sort of combat modifier similar to Civ4 "promotions" and terrain bonuses.
Yes

- You should be able to research stronger units (tank level 1, tank level 2,...)
No

- To prevent entire armies attacking a single provinces, there should be a limit of how large a force can be in a province. Perhaps introduce a "logistics" tech, with the limit being increased every level of logistics you research.
Yes

-War based on grid like maps
Yes

-War based on units and a RNG rather than dice
Yes

-War based on Rock paper scissors
No

-Send battle orders to GM rather than to the thread to cut down on spam
curbing expansion during war to make it possible to conquer another nation, plus to make war look less attractive
Yes

-Lighthearter's very complex idea for combat
Yes

-Battle- Not sure exactly how this would be done, but it would be based on your population. Population would be based on real life, for instance, Florida would have 13 Million people, and you could maintain troops based on your population, based on your military rating, for instance:
Yes

Jungle: If attacking Jungle from non-Jungle territory, lose 1 unit per turn to Malaria

Arctic- If attacking in Winter, defender adds 2 to their roll

Exc. Dice would be rolled by a neutral GM, to prevent fudging.
Yes

You can attack territories you are not adjacent to by air or sea, however, if attacking a coastal territory by sea, the defender adds 1 to their die rolls, if you attack an inland territory by air, they add 2.
No

While at war, you wouldn't be able to expand (Maybe a small amount if you have a high expansion rating.)
Yes

Quote:
You can attack three territories a turn. Mass invasions only count as one (For instance, say you control armies in Florida and Georgia, and want to invade Alabama. You can combine the armies and attack Alabama for just one invasion. However, this applies only to invasions of territories next to you, not sea and air invasions.
Yes

Quote:
-a system to prevent world wars always occurring
Yes

 

[GhostWriter16]

If I didn't vote, I'm not passionate on it. I vote yes on my ideas, unless someone has something better.

@World Wars- Depends on the system. Making rules to make long wars more difficult, neutral to yes. Actually making it so you can't fight, strongly no.

War By Story- I actually like this better than RISK, if army size is factored in.

@Lighthearter Idea- I would have to see it enacted. Neutral. Obviously this OR my ideas for war, not both.

@Rock Paper... War- NO.

@All Ideas about Research- No.

Neutral on all other ideas I didn't make.

 

[Zack]

We really need to make it so people can only declare war with a casus belli. Or just not let Omega, Lighthearter, and Domination play.

 

[ZeletDude]

We really need to make it so people can only declare war with a casus belli. Or just not let Omega, Lighthearter, and Domination play.

This, The Former and Latter just attack WITH no reason other then "oh I hate them"...

 

[Lighthearter]

We really need to make it so people can only declare war with a casus belli. Or just not let Omega, Lighthearter, and Domination play.

Hey! I'm the one who suggested the Causus Belli system! Don't go slamming on me!

And if we wish to continue this debate, we do it in visitor messages and PMs - let's not clutter this thread.

- Lighthearter