IOT Developmental Thread

[Tyo]

I approve the crap out of this idea.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

I would suggest Agents costing at least one pop (in MP, I believe that's 10k people which might be a bit steep but I'm including espionage infrastructure personal in that), increased front-end costs, and maintenance.

That was something I completely forgot about! Yes!

That is toughie. The best I can think of is that, if these annexations cost economic and political turmoil back home combined with high casualty counts, they could be a major hit to stability.

Yeah, is it just me, or does everything suddenly go quiet after defeat?
I just want to give the defender a fighting chance.

-Which reminds me, that's another change, one I'm doing for sure, inspired by something tailless habitually employs: after order lock, combat is made public, and another ~48 hours provided for defenders to adjust plans accordingly. I am through with these sneak-attacks and diplomatic technicalities consistently screwing over (non-nuclear) retaliation. I'm debating whether or not to let attackers revise as well, but either way, since intentions are made public and diplomacy will be suspended for this stage, they can't weasel out of it.

I suggest starting a whole new game with edits like this, Thorvald - but you have my support.

Aye, I'd thought about a redux even before now, but... we can't leave the fate of China unanswered..!

 

[Double A]

You should make a rule that goes something like "You can't pull more than 50% of your forces committed to an offensive operation if you are sneak attacked."

 

[Sonereal]

-Deleted-

 

[Tyo]

If you do continue the game I recommend continuing from last turn. Just throwing that out there.

 

[Tani Coyote]

So that your Alaska invasion can go successfully?

Also Mosher, what? You tell me to continue MP but then tell Thorvald to start a new game?

Looks good overall Thorvald and I'll be taking some of these new developments into account for MP2's ruleset, assuming I ever get around to publishing that. Circle of never ending theft after all!

I'd endorse continuing from last turn simply because it'd mean I wouldn't have to do any more orders.

 

[Tyo]

Alaska's still dead last turn... I said last turn cause the orders locked.

 

[hoplitejoe]

I would rather be alive for the launch of this, but whatever

 

[Tyo]

Which is why I say continue from last turn.

 

[JohannaK]

Each army can take a territory, and with higher tech they can make more. Since there's nothing to account for combat fatigue, with a large enough army a player can conquer the whole damn country in a single strike by default, which is what happened to Xinjiang, Alaska, and most recently Chile.

*cough*India*cough*

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

...Huh. Seems I swapped you for Alaska at the last minute, even though I'm pretty sure you were the first. Sorry about that.

For conventional combat, I would suggest doing what you suggested with a 48 hours for not only defenders, but all nations with official alliances with the attacked. It prevents the loltastic strategy of ALL ARMIES INVADE EVERTYTHING IN SECRET LOLOLOLOL.

It means an attacking nation has to actually think about what their forces can do between crossing a border and the beginning of next turn. If a player overstretches themselves and all of a sudden are beset on by neighbors, then that's a problem.

Alaska, anyone?

Aye, defenders and their allies; and with that in mind I think I will lock the attackers so people can't pull weird feints. You're absolutely right about maintaining a purchase ban on nukes, but unlike Tani, I am not setting retaliation to default unless players give me orders that dictate otherwise. I'm iffy about whether the defender is allowed to buy anything, or simply strategize; maybe I'll set a cap for preparatory draft; total conversion, like what happened in Poland, could be... annoying, economic impact aside.

I've also thought of a new way for military to influence revolt risk: its size compared to the civilian population. Too large an army creates unease; too small invites lawlessness. What do people think is a good range? I'm looking at a "safe" interval of 10%-35%, and then each percent over or under translates into +1% RR.


Speaking of military, here are some of the numbers I've thought of:
Army - 10 gold, 1 pop, 2 gold maintenance; since I think "real" pop value is x10K, each represents a division.
Air wing - 25 gold, 0.2 pop, 5 gold maintenance.
Navy - 35 gold, 0.4 pop, 10 gold maintenance.

 

[Mosher]

So that your Alaska invasion can go successfully?

Also Mosher, what? You tell me to continue MP but then tell Thorvald to start a new game?

Looks good overall Thorvald and I'll be taking some of these new developments into account for MP2's ruleset, assuming I ever get around to publishing that. Circle of never ending theft after all!

I'd endorse continuing from last turn simply because it'd mean I wouldn't have to do any more orders.

I say Thorvald to start a new game because it seems like it would go over a lot smoother, not to mention I want to play with these rules as something stronger than a five province minor

 

[hoplitejoe]

How about this map?

Spoiler :

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

What, you mean slap the new rules onto it? The thought had crossed my mind, actually. Multiple times, even.

Only problem is, most of those players are veterans from IOT's early days, and I'm not sure if they'd remain on board with a more rigid interface.

I *do* want to finish that game, though.

 

[Tyo]

No valid crusader state.

D:

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Did I mention Double A is in Egypt?

 

[Lighthearter]

Sudden thought about preventing sneak attacks - it's a bit of a balance between realism(they CAN happen) and the other bit of realism (you can't send a million men and call it a sneak attack).

If you have a game system with army production, which at this point we all do, there's a certain number(modified by how many spies the enemy has put in your country) of armies that you can send on the attack before they find out that you're coming. If you send more than that, when orders lock your attack is made public ala Thorvald's idea.

So it's still possible to do something like, say, Pearl Harbor, but not a mass invasion of the West Coast if you want secrecy.

Just my couple of pennies.

-L

 

[Tyo]

I think a much more simple way to put it would be to make it achievable through an Espionage mission. If it succeeds, the attack can commence. Just give it a troop limit to keep it balanced.

edit: actually, your idea sounds better in hindsight.

 

[Sonereal]

-Deleted-

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

If you have a game system with army production, which at this point we all do, there's a certain number(modified by how many spies the enemy has put in your country) of armies that you can send on the attack before they find out that you're coming. If you send more than that, when orders lock your attack is made public ala Thorvald's idea.

I think a much more simple way to put it would be to make it achievable through an Espionage mission. If it succeeds, the attack can commence. Just give it a troop limit to keep it balanced.

Both have merit. Problem is agents aren't permanently deployed, and even if they were, the current system makes it hard to provide a player with a cap without inferring the enemy spy presence. For that reason I'm leaning toward Tyo's idea, although I'm still not sure if I'll be able to implement it.

Maybe you could mention in the rules about sending an order regarding preparatory drafts in the case of attacking. In this case, the player would be setting aside monetary funds to pay for the turn's maintenance in case of attack.

As ever, makes sense; I'm just hesitant to open myself up to that much conditional planning, especially given the current state of my inbox.