IOT Developmental Thread
- Thread starter Joecoolyo
- Start date
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
good idea
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
COOL, can't wait 
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
In other news please try out map test 2. This will be useful for an upcoming IOT of mine. (one of the 4 I am writing the rules for lol)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=10579080#post10579080
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=10579080#post10579080
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
No armies and divisions sound cooler, I shall post a tech tree soon.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
Im coming up with a new IOT idea, a modern IOT.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
mine will be based around world war 4, nonevah might get the reference
(I know he plays IOTs but I am not sure if he checks this)
(I know he plays IOTs but I am not sure if he checks this)
mechaerik
Tuturuu!
Will it be fought with sticks and stones?
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
So... some people think that getting money based on the amount of provinces you control is unrealistic. Others think that only getting money from industrialization is unrealistic.
Both sides are right. We need a system where you get money based on both the number of provinces you have plus the number of factories and trade routes. And perhaps those who develop infrastructure more wouldn't be able to claim as many provinces?
Both sides are right. We need a system where you get money based on both the number of provinces you have plus the number of factories and trade routes. And perhaps those who develop infrastructure more wouldn't be able to claim as many provinces?
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
"So... some people think that getting money based on the amount of provinces you control is unrealistic. Others think that only getting money from industrialization is unrealistic.
Both sides are right. We need a system where you get money based on both the number of provinces you have plus the number of factories and trade routes. And perhaps those who develop infrastructure more wouldn't be able to claim as many provinces?"
My upcoming IOT (well one of the 4 I am planning) will have income decided by:
Industrialization
Taxation
Trade
I am also trying to work on a maintenance system, so that larger empires have lower income per province/factory
However my absolute next one (as in the one I am most interested in writing the rules for) will have a very simple calculation:
1 income per province
2 income per factory
Both sides are right. We need a system where you get money based on both the number of provinces you have plus the number of factories and trade routes. And perhaps those who develop infrastructure more wouldn't be able to claim as many provinces?"
My upcoming IOT (well one of the 4 I am planning) will have income decided by:
Industrialization
Taxation
Trade
I am also trying to work on a maintenance system, so that larger empires have lower income per province/factory
However my absolute next one (as in the one I am most interested in writing the rules for) will have a very simple calculation:
1 income per province
2 income per factory
Territorial expansion wasn't an obstacle to infrastructure development, though the development tended to be uneven or concentrated in certain areas.
A large part of the problem is the way the map is divided into provinces. In Iron and Blood, Alaska and Iceland were able to achieve a population and economic strength that would not have been possible in the real world due to geographic limitations. In IOTIV, Darfur costs the same as New York or Zhejiang to claim, but geographically those provinces aren't of equal value.
Well perhaps if you expand on it a bit more...
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Basically, it's similar to Rise and Fall of Empire's combat system. There are five frontage slots on both sides that players fill and a support zone behind the front. Units have a stat for Mobility (which determines the number of actions the unit can perform a turn), Firepower (how much damage it inflicts), and Resilience (basically Hit Points). Many units would have special abilities as well.
So, there wouldn't be something like a tactical map. More like players strategically place units on the map, swap them, and skillfully use special abilities to push into the support zone of another player or force the player to retreat.
Here's the rough draft of the generic unit
Mobility/Rate of Fire: This determines how many "moves" per turn the unit has. A unit can't attack and move at the same time. This also determines the chance of your unit getting the first strike. Infantry have a Mobility of 1, meaning they can either attack/perform an action OR move. Because of this, an all infantry battle is a bloody, grind to the death.
Firepower: This determines how much damage you perform for each strike.
Resilience: Pretty much HP.
Abilities: This is special uses of a unit.
Infantry -1 IP
Mobility/Rate of Attack: 1
They move BY FOOT.
Firepower: 1
Standard Generic Rifle and Standard Generic Fragmentation Grenades
Resilience: 1
Uniforms block bullets, right?
Abilities
Dig-In: Activating this ability during combat will add +1 Resilience to the unit at the cost of not being able to attack. Costs 2 MP.
Frag Out: The unit throws out grenades. With SGFGs, there's a 5% chance of it dealing one damage. Costs 2 MP per use.
Attack: Unit...attacks. Costs 1 MP.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
I really like Ls combat system...
Yeah, considering modern uniforms include body armor.
And if modern shooters have any authority on the subject, wearing a uniform allows you to absorb thousands of bullets in a single battle, as long as it's not more than a clip per minute.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
The problem is that most of the world is in the early 1960s when it comes to tech so I'm assuming they're using a M-1951-analog of armor which, according to Wikipedia
