IOT Developmental Thread

[Double A]

Why not just give sneak attacks a modifier depending on how late they're detected, with x1.5-x2.5 being "oh crap where did this tank come from?"

 

[Sonereal]

As for the "US versus Iraq," that requires massive levels of disparity between militaries. I don't think we've seen that level of disparity in any of my games yet. So it is invalid.

So, a country that can't just strike radar installations with strike fighters has the resources to infiltrate the military, political, and economic sphere of a country so deeply to make the whole country not notice hundreds of thousands of troops across the border massing up? There are both gameplay reasons and realism reasons why the mechanic doesn't work.

Why not just give sneak attacks a modifier depending on how late they're detected, with x1.5-x2.5 being "oh crap where did this tank come from?"

Because that encourages sneak attacks.

From a gameplay perspective, the fact that MP4 is focused on diplomacy over military makes sneak attacks stand out even odder than they already are. The number of conventional military sneak attacks over the last century isn't really that high, because it is extremely difficult to cover up something like that.

It would be like if instead of just bombing Pearl Harbor, Japan had landed and taken the entire West Coast, Hawaii, and Alaska.

That's why there should be something more during the actual game turns that makes sneak attacks less lulzy, even if that means you have to declare in public your intent on mobilizing your forces at least a day before orders lock. It worked, more or less, in Iron and Blood.

you know... i want an IOT in which a single province nation is not only possible, but viable.

i wanted to play as Cyprus for a long time...

Maybe in a 1000-1500 IOT.

You can be a city-state in Fiat Homo as long as you're importing the resources you don't have and are close enough to someone else to set up a trade route.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Please reveal unto me a real-world example of enemy agents compromising the whole network at once. Even D-Day didn't pull off the scale you're describing.

Gameplay > Realism.

This all stinks of a back-handed ploy to justify them / provide ulterior mechanisms.

Gameplay > realism.

I want sneak attacks (and warmongering in general) to suffer heavy penalties. I don't care how one goes about that.

So, a country that can't just strike radar installations with strike fighters has the resources to infiltrate the military, political, and economic sphere of a country so deeply to make the whole country not notice hundreds of thousands of troops across the border massing up?

There's more than just radar installations in this though, which is what I've been trying to point out. Intel within the other nation, satellite uplinks, intelligence shared from third parties, radar, recon... I like having invasions require lots of planning rather than people being able to go "lololol time to conquer the world," and that's really all there is to it.

The number of conventional military sneak attacks over the last century isn't really that high, because it is extremely difficult to cover up something like that.

The number of nuclear wars was also... zero during the last century. How many wars have there been between two superpowers in the modern age as well? Also zero. Likely because it would be too costly to be pursued effectively, even without nuclear weapons as part of it.

One commits a grave error in assuming reality and IOT have anything to do with eachother.

Simply speaking, no sane superpower would go and invade another one unless its advantage is absolute to such an extent it cannot hope to lose. I believe I have modeled that effectively, and that is why the ambitious rogue states get reined in quite quickly.

===

Ultimately war is like economics when I model it. I'm selective about it. I don't model the fact long-term low taxation leads to inflation, or that large amounts of debt are sustainable, or political parties getting in the way of one's policies. There's a HELL of a lot more that's unrealistic besides warfare, but I'm hosting a game first and a simulation second.

 

[Ailedhoo]

I want sneak attacks (and warmongering in general) to suffer heavy penalties. I don't care how one goes about that.

But it would be much fun that sneak attacks are composed via difficult measures.

You say "realism<gameplay" but the issue of a political game like your MPs is that there are political realisms that so happens are fun to set up.

The number of nuclear wars was also... zero during the last century. How many wars have there been between two superpowers in the modern age as well? Also zero. Likely because it would be too costly to be pursued effectively, even without nuclear weapons as part of it.

One commits a grave error in assuming reality and IOT have anything to do with eachother.

Expect nuclear weapons being used by players in IOT are not contribution of glory but rather political suicide/taking out from the game world. The purpose hence is for one to feel like they are in the world. Hence do not judge the notions of what should be in a IOT by how many nuclear wars occur in IOTs: nuclear weapons are not exact a strong point of IOTs.

...although I would love to see more experiments in super weapons and in trying to make nuclear weapons well suited: a nuclear weapon after all it is not supposed to be used, so we need to explore ways of consulting their purpose. As Jeho stated in MP4: nuclear weapons would be at the cost of warmongers. Hence we need to think of new ways to approach atomics.

As for sneak attacks: I say we make a halfway agreement and settle for a sneak attack mechanic when planning wars than means one has to take account of stuff in consideration. To set this of course we need players some way of better improving intelligence gathering operations conducted by spies. To ensure this we could consider branching turns into "plan" and "action" but that would require a perkier type of IOT.

I myself have been thinking of a dark age fantasy IOT and while thinking of the idea of raiding have come to note: a sneak attack would still have to have a billion resources set to help cover it up, as spies and general populace might notice that the army reserves are being summoned for military preparation...

Still: what I am getting at is that we can enhance IOTs by making sneak attacks more challenging to conduct and hence ensuring the game is more fun by improving the importance of intelligence. After all the majority of intelligence gathering by intelligence agencies tend to be open source; overt information. Overt information can tell you a lot on how troops are being drafted for service...

Finally: I am indeed considering making a game here while waiting for Beyond the Revolution to be signed up enough. Whether I do a IOT here or not will depend on how I am feeling but I will when it comes to a war mechanic take account of war preparation and, of course, of the joys of being a pillaging raider.

...and yes I have been playing too much Crusader Kings 2 but you gotta love the Old Gods.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Idea for Real-time battle simulation in IOT: I was thinking we could use chatrooms to make a rather intresting battle system. I have the crude rules invisioned but it would go something like this.
1. A certain time is chosen that suits both players...if one player cannot participate he may NPC himself or leave it to another cfcer to command his troops
2. Both players enter a designated chatroom. Spectators are welcome but will not be allowed to spam
3. The GM posts a map with troop ensignia and a grid.
4. Players give orders, command troop movements, GM tracks it and calculates battle results, the system would allow more realistic battle occurances like flanking, artillery fire, jews, perks and etc, so the battles aren't decided with randomness


I will give more info when i get home and I'll post the full system.

 

[hoplitejoe]

I have always thought sneak attacks deserve a massive penalty for their attack. It makes so much more sense from a game play perspective. "Will I risk a suprise attack with a weakened attack, or will I give them a chance to prepare then attack with full force?" sort of thing.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Idea for Real-time battle simulation in IOT: I was thinking we could use chatrooms to make a rather intresting battle system. I have the crude rules invisioned but it would go something like this.
1. A certain time is chosen that suits both players...if one player cannot participate he may NPC himself or leave it to another cfcer to command his troops
2. Both players enter a designated chatroom. Spectators are welcome but will not be allowed to spam
3. The GM posts a map with troop ensignia and a grid.
4. Players give orders, command troop movements, GM tracks it and calculates battle results, the system would allow more realistic battle occurances like flanking, artillery fire, jews, perks and etc, so the battles aren't decided with randomness


I will give more info when i get home and I'll post the full system.

This is a good idea if well played correctly. Well it may pose for a general than a politician controlling a battle front hand could be fun, especially when one combines with initial war plans for some chaotic results. It will also allow role play to be more chaotic in line with the nature of war. Finally it would encourage players to think about their army make ups, especially important in scaling and setting the use of rocket artillery to bombard your enemies with maximum efficiency while ones commando teams deals with the enemy commanders.

 

[Double A]

I have always thought sneak attacks deserve a massive penalty for their attack. It makes so much more sense from a game play perspective. "Will I risk a suprise attack with a weakened attack, or will I give them a chance to prepare then attack with full force?" sort of thing.

Seems I was wrong in thinking this is what we were talking about. I advocate Pearl Harbor scale sneak attacks. Going back to the fort system, you could blow the crap out of a fort if you're crazy lucky and then follow up with the other 95% of your mobilized army there and the rest of the forts you can attack.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

This is a good idea if well played correctly. Well it may pose for a general than a politician controlling a battle front hand could be fun, especially when one combines with initial war plans for some chaotic results. It will also allow role play to be more chaotic in line with the nature of war. Finally it would encourage players to think about their army make ups, especially important in scaling and setting the use of rocket artillery to bombard your enemies with maximum efficiency while ones commando teams deals with the enemy commanders.

I'll launch a beta when I have the time. It'll be a closed one, with 7 players at maximum, probably the Balkan wars (1912-1913). But first i need to get the happening going.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I make small-scale sneak attacks perfectly viable. A few thousand troops can very easily just look like an exercise given most countries don't have Canada and America's warm relations on their border.

But a few million troops all steadily moving towards the border over a few weeks? That's going to get noticed.

In the end it's going to cause a war either way though. IOT is notorious for small issues becoming the basis of world wars. Can't get one province in a game with one thousand free provinces? Time to crack some skulls!

 

[Ailedhoo]

I'll launch a beta when I have the time. It'll be a closed one, with 7 players at maximum, probably the Balkan wars (1912-1913). But first i need to get the happening going.

Excellent.

I look forward to seeing this applied in IOTs.

If all goes to plan this might prove to be one of the strongest mechanics of a IOT.

 

[Mathalamus]

I look forward to seeing this applied in IOTs.

i really hope not. sorry, i like simple battles more. it sounds like an interesting theory, but it looks to be a huge time sink, and you would have to do thus for every. single. battle, no matter how mismatched the forces are.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Unless, of course, it'd deployed at the strategic scale.

 

[Ailedhoo]

i really hope not. sorry, i like simple battles more. it sounds like an interesting theory, but it looks to be a huge time sink, and you would have to do thus for every. single. battle, no matter how mismatched the forces are.

...but war plans in IOTs are not simple things and the alterative is to rely on rolls which would not be grand.

A time sink? This think can set for a agreed time and would use the time to result not only in a grander war mechanic that tests players but also set for purpose of organising RP to grander scale.

As for "ever. single. battle," we need to calculate how this would measure.

Finally "mismatched" is a subjective term: a small army can beat a large army with correct tactics and... perhaps additional factors but consider that the mechanic may provide some new interesting ways to play around with battles.

It also helps get people into the world grander.

 

[Mathalamus]

Unless, of course, it'd deployed at the strategic scale.

its still an unnecessary time sink, and almost no one has the time to spare for that. also, it sounds complicated.

 

[Ailedhoo]

its still an unnecessary time sink, and almost no one has the time to spare for that. also, it sounds complicated.

People have the time to spare: what statistics are you using?

Also it is deep but not needlessly have to be complicated, especially as it would have to be simple enough for real time usage but deep enough for strategy.

After all is not IOT and all other games a unnecessary time sink?

 

[NedimNapoleon]

i really hope not. sorry, i like simple battles more. it sounds like an interesting theory, but it looks to be a huge time sink, and you would have to do thus for every. single. battle, no matter how mismatched the forces are.

No. Forces will be "concentrated" aka you wont have 100 armies and they will not be so large. Also fronts are a factor which I will add. The game will not have a large number of provinces as well. I think you'd spend more time writing Battle RP that never gets read by anyone but the GM

Unless, of course, it'd deployed at the strategic scale.

Agreed.

...but war plans in IOTs are not simple things and the alterative is to rely on rolls which would not be grand.

A time sink? This think can set for a agreed time and would use the time to result not only in a grander war mechanic that tests players but also set for purpose of organising RP to grander scale.

As for "ever. single. battle," we need to calculate how this would measure.

Finally "mismatched" is a subjective term: a small army can beat a large army with correct tactics and... perhaps additional factors but consider that the mechanic may provide some new interesting ways to play around with battles.

It also helps get people into the world grander.

Its useful because it eliminates randomness and just sheer force. I like to know why I lost and why didn't my goddamn generals do anything. Another factor about the time is that you dont necessarily have to be the commander. Two players can play a faction, one being the political/diplomatic leader the other being the military leader.

its still an unnecessary time sink, and almost no one has the time to spare for that. also, it sounds complicated.

People have the time to spare: what statistics are you using?

Also it is deep but not needlessly have to be complicated, especially as it would have to be simple enough for real time usage but deep enough for strategy.

After all is not IOT and all other games a unnecessary time sink?

Agreed.

 

[Mathalamus]

People have the time to spare: what statistics are you using?

Also it is deep but not needlessly have to be complicated, especially as it would have to be simple enough for real time usage but deep enough for strategy.

After all is not IOT and all other games a unnecessary time sink?

i suppose you have a good point. but what about obvious mismatches? like the forces of three or four nations against one nation. and you have to calculate the casualties...for the winning side, at least.

that is, unless you already have a solution. (limited number of troops on each side for example.)

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Well IOTs and Geo-Politics usually work in the manner of gangbangs. I see no reason to ban limited troops or anything. Thats the part of the game where your diplomacy kicks in, I mean look at the Ottomans in the fist Balkan war and the Bulgarians at the second Balkan war.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Its useful because it eliminates randomness and just sheer force. I like to know why I lost and why didn't my goddamn generals do anything. Another factor about the time is that you dont necessarily have to be the commander. Two players can play a faction, one being the political/diplomatic leader the other being the military leader.

I like this idea!

Of course we will also need to consider the nature of ones forces. What weapons will be bought to the battlefield? That question has to be asked, especially as this will set the setting better and allow one to ensure arms are set for grand users.

I especially look forward to see how guerrilla tactics are played out with this!