IOT Developmental Thread
- Thread starter Joecoolyo
- Start date
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
Precisely my point! Go back to when India was cruelly backstabbed by Korea and Oz... 
Mosher
Mushroom dad
I wouldn't mind if we went back in time to India; maybe after realizing he'd get his ass kicked by us, he'd actually build a military and things would be just fine.
As for Hawaii, LH said that he no longer wanted to play the game anymore.
As for Hawaii, LH said that he no longer wanted to play the game anymore.
hoplitejoe
Top fun-poster
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,470
Or we could go back even earlier! Like when no one had placed there nations.
Mosher
Mushroom dad
I prefer starting over as well. I said that right after Thorvald posted the rule set. 
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
What if we continued MP a few more turns with partial revision, and then launched a new game? 'Cuz you're right, it's great for a fresh start, but until I started posting these musings the general consensus was to push through it.
CHINA, DAMN IT!! I BE MAKIN' MOVIES FOR THAT CRAP!!
CHINA, DAMN IT!! I BE MAKIN' MOVIES FOR THAT CRAP!!
mechaerik
Tuturuu!
Will it be on CFC, or will you host it externally? Please be the former.
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
Here for sure; probably double-hosted, but CFC takes precedence either way.
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
More musings:
UN
I can't recall if Tani ever made it explicit, but voting power was calculated by faction population, rather than 1-country-1-vote as I believe it actually works. I also don't recall the powers of the Security Council or how it was chosen. Would people want to keep this tricky system, or go back to the way it's usually done?
Collateral damage
Also ill-explained. Without getting into specific numbers, I'd thought of calculating the impugned provinces' percent of total national pop./industry, and then destroying a percentage of that (1-80% infra., 0-50% pop.), with each military tech level (on the attacker's side) reducing the upper limit by 4% (capped at 16 and 6, respectively). This requires, of course, that I figure out
The actual battlefield
Rather than determining victory and then taking the land, I think the territory at stake should be determined before the battle begins. I'm still not sure how to do this: perhaps, every surviving division on the attacker's side above the defender's survivors is an additional province captured?
Espionage
This continues to prove the hardest element to rectify. Again, I'm looking to model it on variable base success rates, and a fixed chance of "discovery" (default 10%) that will lead to a shoot-out.
Here's a tentative list:
- Sow Discontent: 40% + target's RR.
- Incite Riot: 30% + target's RR.
- Equip Resistance: 50% (70% with direct border to rebels).
- Steal Plans: 30%. Calculated first; raises odds of all subsequent actions to 90%.
- Stage Coup: 20% + target's RR.
- Steal Technology: 25%.
- Steal Money: 50%. Maximum 20% of target's total net income, and no more than 80% from all missions.
- Suitcase Nuke: 20% (15% military-only); launched as a single mission but calculated per bomb. Failed missions relinquish the bomb to the defender. When targeting military, exposure has a 10% chance of premature detonation, destroying a province.
Regardless of the above, I'm trying to figure out the optimal balance between tech and spies, and how they affect the final outcome of successful ops. Perhaps, instead of doubling strength, tech merely increases it in ~10% intervals? Or peg strength to tech, and committed agents increase mission odds by 0.01% each?
As for the shoot-outs, instead of a set percent per side, there's a 1-in-10 chance of each individual agent dying (capped at the total # of the weaker side), thus making it possible for the stronger agent pool to accumulate more losses than the weaker. Again, the defender will only lose up to 50% of its total force (for that round).
UN
I can't recall if Tani ever made it explicit, but voting power was calculated by faction population, rather than 1-country-1-vote as I believe it actually works. I also don't recall the powers of the Security Council or how it was chosen. Would people want to keep this tricky system, or go back to the way it's usually done?
Collateral damage
Also ill-explained. Without getting into specific numbers, I'd thought of calculating the impugned provinces' percent of total national pop./industry, and then destroying a percentage of that (1-80% infra., 0-50% pop.), with each military tech level (on the attacker's side) reducing the upper limit by 4% (capped at 16 and 6, respectively). This requires, of course, that I figure out
The actual battlefield
Rather than determining victory and then taking the land, I think the territory at stake should be determined before the battle begins. I'm still not sure how to do this: perhaps, every surviving division on the attacker's side above the defender's survivors is an additional province captured?
Espionage
This continues to prove the hardest element to rectify. Again, I'm looking to model it on variable base success rates, and a fixed chance of "discovery" (default 10%) that will lead to a shoot-out.
Here's a tentative list:
- Sow Discontent: 40% + target's RR.
- Incite Riot: 30% + target's RR.
- Equip Resistance: 50% (70% with direct border to rebels).
- Steal Plans: 30%. Calculated first; raises odds of all subsequent actions to 90%.
- Stage Coup: 20% + target's RR.
- Steal Technology: 25%.
- Steal Money: 50%. Maximum 20% of target's total net income, and no more than 80% from all missions.
- Suitcase Nuke: 20% (15% military-only); launched as a single mission but calculated per bomb. Failed missions relinquish the bomb to the defender. When targeting military, exposure has a 10% chance of premature detonation, destroying a province.
Regardless of the above, I'm trying to figure out the optimal balance between tech and spies, and how they affect the final outcome of successful ops. Perhaps, instead of doubling strength, tech merely increases it in ~10% intervals? Or peg strength to tech, and committed agents increase mission odds by 0.01% each?
As for the shoot-outs, instead of a set percent per side, there's a 1-in-10 chance of each individual agent dying (capped at the total # of the weaker side), thus making it possible for the stronger agent pool to accumulate more losses than the weaker. Again, the defender will only lose up to 50% of its total force (for that round).
christos200
Never tell me the odds
China wants MP to continue.
And Thorvald, dont even dare to use the GM powers to destroy China!
And Thorvald, dont even dare to use the GM powers to destroy China!
christos200
Never tell me the odds
WTH?
Anyway, i am bored of hearing your trolling.
Anyway, i am bored of hearing your trolling.
Mosher
Mushroom dad
GM powers were used to retardly reform China, GM powers can be used to destroy it so it isn't quite so stupid.
christos200
Never tell me the odds
That is an abuse of the GM powers and i will call Tani.
christos200
Never tell me the odds
What serious problem? Why cant you accept that i managed to become a superpower in one game?
