Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
how dare you blame me? clearly it was you who ended the last two games.
IOT Developmental Thread
- Thread starter Joecoolyo
- Start date
how dare you blame me? clearly it was you who ended the last two games.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Yet I only played in one of them!
Omega124
Challenging Fate
Actually, after watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I change my vote to Yes for the medieval idea.
Huh, you should probably catch up on your history, considering that 1500 was no where near the medieval ages
Anyways, sorry guys for the late update. I got really caught up in my HOI3 game yesterday and totally forgot about this. But nonetheless, here it is.
- have one thread for role-playing, and one thread for official messages (claims, alliances, wars, ...) were you can only post one message per update IIIIIIIIII/000000
- points should not only be spent on claims but also on wars, technology, economy, navy etc. IIIIIIIII/00000
- to distance itself from the other version, the game should start in the year 1500 IIIIIII/000000000
-Keep diplomacy to PM's a social groups to make the thread less cluttered and to keep diplomacy more hidden, rather than in the open IIIIIII/00000000
-Disallow two posts in a row IIIIIIIII/0000000
Today's boots are the idea of starting in the reformation, and the hidden diplomacy idea.
Voting: Round 9
-Nations should be allowed to reorganize their provinces borders
-Events based on the game itself
-Banning re-joining if you quit
-Implement a rebellion system
-disputed territories system
Zack
99% hot gas
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Awful, awful idea.
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
Only if it does not effect the actual game mechanics (eg combat)
Otherwise, NO
YES
NO. Sometimes you get bored or annoyed at someone or have to be away for a while. You should have the option of joining again at another time (though as a different nation).
YES
YES
GhostWriter16
Deity
1. No. Maybe for splitting between two countries, but no other time, and def not if my combat system is used.
2.Not sure what this means.
3. YES, however, I think that if you had a GOOD reason to quit (Other than just because someone DOWed you) then I think, case by case the GM should have a right to make exceptions. If you are completely dead, I don't have an issue with you respawning, if you quit because you were going on a long vacation, exc. I don't care. If you wanna quit just to prevent someone invading you, then you shouldn't be able to rejoin.
PS On this Idea: If I can add an idea, that I think best balances how territories should be distributed.
If someone is invading you and you quit, the invaders should get it.
If at Peace, the quitter can pick I suppose. That's my suggestion.
4.Yes, but don't make it unrealsitc. Usually, the effects of rebellions are minor, only a few have major effect. The same should apply in game.
5. Not sure what this means.
Well, have fun in 5 without me. Unless the point system is reformed somehow.
-Nations should be allowed to reorganize their provinces borders
No
-Events based on the game itself
No?
-Banning re-joining if you quit
No
-Implement a rebellion system
One thing at a time
-disputed territories system
It's called flip a coin or make a deal.
-Nations should be allowed to reorganize their provinces borders
No
-Events based on the game itself
No?
-Banning re-joining if you quit
No
-Implement a rebellion system
One thing at a time
-disputed territories system
It's called flip a coin or make a deal.
Zack
99% hot gas
Oh please.
-Nations should be allowed to reorganize their provinces borders
No.
-Events based on the game itself
Yes, if they're not too complex.
-Banning re-joining if you quit
Probably sensible.
-Implement a rebellion system
I think that's too complicated.
-disputed territories system
Of course
No.
-Events based on the game itself
Yes, if they're not too complex.
-Banning re-joining if you quit
Probably sensible.
-Implement a rebellion system
I think that's too complicated.
-disputed territories system
Of course
-Nations should be allowed to reorganize their provinces borders
Nooooo
-Events based on the game itself
Yes
-Banning re-joining if you quit
Yes
-Implement a rebellion system
Yes
-disputed territories system
Yes. I liked the version in IOT 1.
Nooooo
-Events based on the game itself
Yes
-Banning re-joining if you quit
Yes
-Implement a rebellion system
Yes
-disputed territories system
Yes. I liked the version in IOT 1.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Oh please.
No, really. Anything else is just cheezing.
That is stupid. Quitting =/= surrender.
If I was GM, I'd have a dissent value for each nation (or perhaps province?). A 10% dissent would mean a 10% chance of a rebellion breaking out that turn. I'd roll two dice. A higher number means a more severe rebellion - a one would just mean street riots, a twelve would be a civil war.
No, there needs to be an actual rule on this. It'll help control wars breaking out too.
landlubber
Scottish Nationalist
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 1,534
Yea to all but the first one.
Omega124
Challenging Fate
No on first one, yes on all others.
GhostWriter16
Deity
1. I sort of agree with you. Then their nation should become NPC and I should still be able to conquer them. My invasion shouldn't be ruined by someone quitting.
2. I'd do it per nation, per province is gonna be confusing. I was gonna say it was too high until I saw the street riot bit. I agree.
3. Nah, war is part of the game. Let people settle things either by pen or sword.
Zack
99% hot gas
Domination, this is NOT a wargame. Go play Hearts of Iron if you want a wargame.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I never claimed it was a wargame. Ilduce did at one point, but, I agree with you there. However, it is part of the game, and will happen, yes, even just because people wanna be aggressive.
This is what I said.
