GhostWriter16
Deity
Umm... I'll join, but otherwise I agree. I refuse to call it IOTV though.
Its better than Medieval.
IOT Developmental Thread
- Thread starter Joecoolyo
- Start date
Umm... I'll join, but otherwise I agree. I refuse to call it IOTV though.
Mad Man
Your lord and master
Actually it was just ironically coincidental
Oh by the way I propose the next game should have Giant Death Robots despite of the fact that it will be set in the renaissance, I vote Yes to this and the polls will be closed in thirty minutes.
Reiser
Young Christian
No to Giant Death Robots.
Haters gonna hate.
Haters gonna hate.
Sweet llamas of the Bahamas...
Re: Start date: I think 1500 would be a good start date. Now, do you guys really want to start with historical borders? Every past IOT threads has player-created countries, so IMHO we should be free to do that too in this one.
Additionally, if we are strictly historical about it people who start in the Americas or Africa (for instance) are severely disadvantaged compared to someone who starts in Europe. IMO, we should make all player-controlled countries start at similar tech level, as D3K said.
Re: Battle Systems: Personally, I dislike using a game as battle simulations, since it limits the things we could do/have control over, particularly in terms of army size and tactics. Rise of Nations might be the best option, if we decide to do battles with games (which, as stated, I disagree with). You can make a RoN scenario for a particular battle very quickly with the mapmaker. Still, I prefer stats-based combat, or Lighthearter's map idea (see the front page). It'd be more simple, straightforward, flexible, gives the player more control and I imagine less time-consuming as well.
Diplomacy: I like the proposed casus belli system. Additionally, to slow down alliance formation and, by extension, reduce the occurrence massive world wars, I suggest: limiting diplomacy and placing a cost on certain diplomatic actions. This represents the costs of embassies and envoys you have to send to negotiate treaties. Guarantees, embargoes and trade pacts would be relatively cheap, defensive pacts and alliances would be more expensive.
I agree with this. If combat is stat-based, I think sieges is best represented with defensive bonuses for forts and offensive bonuses for siege units.
My idea is: you decide how many troops would attack a certain province and from which directions, and x number of troops would translate to a certain number of units in game. Of course the number of troops you can support would have to depend on your economy.
And you have a world war breaking out every second day. I think that should be avoided.
I've said it before - Mad Man's vote doesn't count.
It'd effect unit types, maybe economy and trade, but really nothing major. I mean, combat has been and probably will be rather abstract anyway, and the same for economy and trade. The rest is RP.
And, if we do this right, we'll eventually get to the modern era
Re: Start date: I think 1500 would be a good start date. Now, do you guys really want to start with historical borders? Every past IOT threads has player-created countries, so IMHO we should be free to do that too in this one.
Additionally, if we are strictly historical about it people who start in the Americas or Africa (for instance) are severely disadvantaged compared to someone who starts in Europe. IMO, we should make all player-controlled countries start at similar tech level, as D3K said.
Re: Battle Systems: Personally, I dislike using a game as battle simulations, since it limits the things we could do/have control over, particularly in terms of army size and tactics. Rise of Nations might be the best option, if we decide to do battles with games (which, as stated, I disagree with). You can make a RoN scenario for a particular battle very quickly with the mapmaker. Still, I prefer stats-based combat, or Lighthearter's map idea (see the front page). It'd be more simple, straightforward, flexible, gives the player more control and I imagine less time-consuming as well.
Diplomacy: I like the proposed casus belli system. Additionally, to slow down alliance formation and, by extension, reduce the occurrence massive world wars, I suggest: limiting diplomacy and placing a cost on certain diplomatic actions. This represents the costs of embassies and envoys you have to send to negotiate treaties. Guarantees, embargoes and trade pacts would be relatively cheap, defensive pacts and alliances would be more expensive.
I agree with this. If combat is stat-based, I think sieges is best represented with defensive bonuses for forts and offensive bonuses for siege units.
My idea is: you decide how many troops would attack a certain province and from which directions, and x number of troops would translate to a certain number of units in game. Of course the number of troops you can support would have to depend on your economy.
And you have a world war breaking out every second day. I think that should be avoided.
I've said it before - Mad Man's vote doesn't count.
It'd effect unit types, maybe economy and trade, but really nothing major. I mean, combat has been and probably will be rather abstract anyway, and the same for economy and trade. The rest is RP.
And, if we do this right, we'll eventually get to the modern era
Lighthearter
President of the United States
Unfortunately in SWGE we found out that my combat system takes a long time to resolve. I can try to fix this with a smaller map and using Xfire instead of thread posts to send moves, but I'm not confident that it would work.
- Lighthearter
- Lighthearter
Omega124
Challenging Fate
I so call the Ottomans. All those whom disagree can take it with me.
Mark my words, Math, Constantinople will fall.
Mark my words, Math, Constantinople will fall.
This is Weik's Victoria map:
Now, I think we can and should reduce the number of provinces, but what do you think about something like that?
Edit: for something similar but with less provinces, this is Hearts of Iron II (borders are from 1936)
And this is from Europa Universalis III, which is actually a late Medieval-Renaissance-Enlightenment Era game. I think this one might be better than the other two, with some modifications (eg filling in the Terrae Incognita)
Spoiler it's big :
Now, I think we can and should reduce the number of provinces, but what do you think about something like that?
Edit: for something similar but with less provinces, this is Hearts of Iron II (borders are from 1936)
Spoiler this one's big, too :
And this is from Europa Universalis III, which is actually a late Medieval-Renaissance-Enlightenment Era game. I think this one might be better than the other two, with some modifications (eg filling in the Terrae Incognita)
Spoiler not as big, but still big :
Omega124
Challenging Fate
Hearts of Iron map, most definitly
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
uh... um.... in 1500s the city of Constantinople is yours. please study history.
and, mark my words omega, you will be destroyed if you dare declare war on me without reason.
Lighthearter
President of the United States
I think I'll say Vicky.
- Lighthearter
- Lighthearter
Zack
99% hot gas
Hearts of Iron 2.
Is there something wrong with the HOI3 map (besides the horrific error of Stalingrad's location)?
Is there something wrong with the HOI3 map (besides the horrific error of Stalingrad's location)?
No love for the EU3 map?
(Note: the blank areas will be filled in of course)
10,000 provinces. Nuff said.
(Note: the blank areas will be filled in of course)
10,000 provinces. Nuff said.
GhostWriter16
Deity
YES!!!!
Are we really calling countries yet? If so, I call dibs on the Mongols.
For some reason, I like 1490, as the Americas are totally empty and just about to be found. Maybe 1500 is too though. I think that's fine, and 1 Turn should= 5 Years.
What I think we should do is when you start in the Americas as a Native American nation, you should get less technology (If we use RON as a sim for example, they'd be Medeval) but they'd get enough more troops to make up for it that they would be equal in the game.
As for the NPC natives, they should just be weaker, Medieval Era (Maybe even Classical for Some) and less troops.
I admittedly don't get Lighthearter's idea, and it takes WAY too much time, even for me (And I have more time then most of you all.) As for stats, its fine with me if you don't need to understand a complex Math formula to play (There can BE a complex Math formula just so long as only the GM needs to understand it and I'm not the GM.)
I still Prefer RON as the game, more strategy than Civ IV (For a single battle anyhow), simpler then total war, and more direct then stats.
Based on how many units you had on the map, you would get an equal number of units in the battle, and you could pick any Gunpowder Era (Enlightment later) for your unit on the map. Otherwise, two tough AIs would duke it out. I like this idea.
Diplomacy: I like the proposed casus belli system. Additionally, to slow down alliance formation and, by extension, reduce the occurrence massive world wars, I suggest: limiting diplomacy and placing a cost on certain diplomatic actions. This represents the costs of embassies and envoys you have to send to negotiate treaties. Guarantees, embargoes and trade pacts would be relatively cheap, defensive pacts and alliances would be more expensive.
EDIT: Apparently Joecoolyo said to stop discussing this. Sorry Joe, but if battle type is being asked about, I'm gonna give my opinion. Also, only the GM needs to own the game for this to work. If they don't it obviously doesn't work.
It'd effect unit types, maybe economy and trade, but really nothing major. I mean, combat has been and probably will be rather abstract anyway, and the same for economy and trade. The rest is RP.
OK.
And, if we do this right, we'll eventually get to the modern era
Ummm.... If we were doing it right we'd be there already.
We're not trying to avoid war here. War happens, and its an important part of the game (If it weren't we wouldn't be worried about battle mechanics.) What we're trying to avoid is invading someone without any good reason, or just because they invaded someone on the other side of the world. We're trying to limit world wars, I don't think we're even trying to get less wars, but more 1 VS 1 or 2 VS 2 Ones.
@Taillesskangaru
Which casus beli system do you support? Mine? Someone elses? Which one?
As for the "Cost for diplomatic actions" I think the cost would be negligible (Just raise taxes on your subjects) and would break the game if you de facto couldn't allign with people. I say leave diplomacy on its own, but if its Renaissance, I think that Declaring War for a defensive pact should hurt stability unless its for a long-time ally or if you can prove you have reason to believe the attack endangers you (More likely if you are geographically close to your ally.)
As for Maps, anything that has the WHOLE WORLD I'm OK with. But you have to have the Americas in.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I just looked the maps over and, I don't really care for any of them as they are very distorted and do not have national borders. I personally would rather use something similar to IOT II or IOT IV (Are they the same???) And give some kind of advantages to upset the disadvantages of owning larger territories.
