IOT Developmental Thread

[Robert Can't]

As a GM I've promised a lot in my years here. The long forgotten games such as MIOT2, SpoM Pt. 3, Chiron and ColligIOT. But now, as I am making my grand return I'd like to declare that its time for a show everything but Yul Brynner - I intend to take you on that long promised trip to an oriental city that doesn't know what its getting. IOT is going to be witness to the ultimate test of cerebral fitness.
Now usually one IOT is very like another when you're heads down on the players and maps. But its a drag and its a bore to just be looking at just that. What do I mean - when you see one filled in and informative map you can see it all? But I'm talking about diplomacy, warm and sweet. Some of which will be set up in this game.
But I know I'm trying to bring in a whole bunch of people many of whom are purists, who get their kicks going below the stats. But don't worry you won't just be watching the game you'll be controlling it and there will be some stats that you can look at - though the ones we use might not excite you. So maybe you should go back to your maps and your IC, EC and $ but I have a hope that maybe this IOT will make the doubters humble... One Night in Bangkok!

For those of you who found the last couple of paragraphs perhaps a tad weird, check out the song. Now onto the Rules!

One Night In Bangkok is intended to be different from a normal IOT as it does not have a map, players do not control nations, merely represent them, everyone has the same winning condition and it will play out in real time. The basic premise is that a near future world stands on the brink of global war breaking out between any two of four major power blocks. Nobody wants nuclear war to break out but for many it feels inevitable, as tensions continued to escalate one last ditch attempt is being made to secure world peace: The Bangkok Peace Conference - hosted by Thailand these talks aim to allow for a compromise between the great powers and prevent global nuclear war.

So what does that mean in terms of gameplay? First each player will take on the roll of a diplomatic delegation (preliminary listings below). Of those the five most important will be the host delegation and the delegations from Brussels, Washington, London and Moscow (The seats of the leaders of the four main power blocks threatening world war). Each player has two statistics that they can look at - the faith of the leadership and the faith of the people in their delegation. If the leadership gets too pissed off with you they may publicly withdraw support from the conference. If two great powers withdraw their support from the conference then global war breaks out and everyone dies.

The game is divided into debate sessions and each round last four days as follows:
Day 1: Deciding the agenda - nations can table an agenda of four issues from the issue list and the agenda with the most support is chosen.
Days 2-4: The players table a solution for the set of four issues on the agenda. If one of these solutions receives majority support it passes on to treaty stage where if all delegates (whose leadership are currently supporting the conference) either agree or abstain it is written into the proposed Bangkok Peace Treaty (though there is nothing to stop the delegations from revisiting an issues on a later agenda).

Each player is given a copy of their home nation's agenda and if the delegation goes against that agenda government support drops. Popular support will drop if nations make unpopular choices or are seen to be blocking the conference. Some government will also have given their delegations secret agendas which are usually secret and stuff.

Meanwhile Bangkok also happens to be a wonderful city for the delegates to visit in their down time. So each day a delegate may state if they wish to spend any time at as massage parlour, bar, or find a place to play some chess each of which give their own distinct advantages. You may also find that you can attempt to use subterfuge to your advantage, plotting to discredit or poison your rivals and thus make the peace process flow more smoothly in your direction.
Though, of course, you would only want to do this to appease those at home - at the end of the day everyone has a single goal and that is to avert a world war.

So that's the outline of how the game works. I'll be looking to post a sign up thread soon in which you will be able to choose a group of delegations which you would like to be considered for out of the following list:


Bangkok
Jakarta
Buenos Aires
Dhaka

EEAS (Brussels)
Quai d'Orsay
AA (Berlin)
Abuja
Pakistan
Turkey
Turkish Cyprus
Madrid

Washington
Jerusalem
SRE (Mexico City)
Riyadh
Cuba
Seoul
Manilla
Japan

Whitehall
GAC/AMC (Ottawa)
Canberra
Raisina Hill
Greek Cyprus
Nairobi
Oslo
Wellington


The Kremlin
Itamaraty
Beijing
Baq-e Melli
La Paz
Mozambique
Luanda
Kinshasa

Those in bold all need players and so have first priority, the smaller text have least priority. The list indicates which block the delegates stand with and the non aligned ones are grouped with Bangkok.
In a sign up I'll ask for 5 possibilities (ordered) with at least one from each of the three types (bold, normal small) and if there's someone on the list you really want o be you can throw that in too if you wish.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

It's funny because this was supposed to be the XIX pregame.

 

[Robert Can't]

It may yet be the IOTXXIV pregame

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

 

[JohannaK]

how do these blocs make any sense...

 

[Omega124]

how do these blocs make any sense...

Clearly some Althist has gone on, but it seems the British Empire wins the Suez Crisis and holds onto their Empire (but is probably still declining), and that causes European intergration to go quicker without the Brits there to go interfere in European politics. Somehow this caused the Soviet Union to survive as well, as long with an American victory in the Bay of Pigs.

 

[inthesomeday]

Hm... If we have Whitehall, the Kremlin, Raisina Hill, etc, shouldn't Washington and Belgium be the Pentagon/White House and Europol or something?

 

[Robert Can't]

I haven't yet implemented a standardised naming scheme yet put the idea was that they should also be the names or metonyms of the Foreign offices of the respective governments hence EEAS, Quai d'Orsay and Itamaraty.
Its not finalised but I'm tailoring the names to personal taste as I though phrases like the delegates from Quai d'Orsay sounds cool whereas the Foggy Bottom party really doesn't sound as good as the Washington delegation.

 

[Shadowbound]

fudge you foggy bottom is great

 

[Robert Can't]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...and-pre-game-discussion.622453/#post-14867020

O look

 

[Crezth]

**** you foggy bottom is great

+1 plus 1 une plus

 

[Robert Can't]

So I've put together a combat calculator for use in IOTs. Some of you will remember that a while back I was trying to build a library of resources for IOT GMs to use - at the time the idea was seen as controversial because people thought it was an attempt to standardise IOTs. I wish to refute that straight away before that train gets started again, My aim is only to provide resources so that people who wouldn't otherwise want to GM a game might be able to.

Throughout my time as a GM here the hardest thing has always been deciding combat outcomes and such. The pursuit of a battle calculator that has enough room for tinkering while also providing a report of casualties has always been one of my goals. So here's what I've come up with:

Edit: Looked awful in CFC formatting will upload the R flie momentarily

Editedit: No idea how you do post attachments in new cfc I'll just copy paste the code and hope it isn't too offensive looking

Spoiler :

#Here is the code for the battle calculator that I have come up with. To use it simply
#run it in R, the two arrays and corresponding vectors below are there as examples and
#you can tinker with them to see the possible variations this calculator provides.



AUS<-array(c(0,1,0,1,0,2,2,1,2,2,1,1,2,2,1,2,0,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,1),c(3,10))
ITA<-array(c(0,1,0,1,0,2,2,1,2,2,1,1,2,2,1,2,0,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,1),c(3,10))
aus<-c(3,1,1)
ita<-c(2,1,2)

#Presented in this example we have three troop types as represented by the 3 rows
#of the array and the 3 entires in the vectors representing the army compositions
#of the two opposing forces. The first colum corresponds to the recconisance value
#provided by that unit type. Then follow three sets of 3x3 submatricies which
#correspond to three battle types - for example skirmish, pitched battle, flanking
#battle - the first two columsn are the attack and defense values and the third is the
#ratio by which casualties will be distributed.
#As a GM you could add more unit types or battle types to suit the needs of your
#setting or style of game, you could even simplify down to just one.


fun2<-function(X,Y,x,y,r1,r2){
#here we define the function that will output the battle results. X and Y are the arrays
#containing the unit data for each of the opposing forces (each gets their own in order
#to facotor in technological diferences or other bouses). The second two values are the
#army compositions as vectors and the last two represnt "leadership bonuses".
  Y[,c(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)]<-Y[,c(1,3,2,4,6,5,7,9,8,10)]
  #this line just swaps the attack and defence columsn for one of the matricies to make
  #things easier later.
  rec1<-crossprod(x,X[,1])+r1
  rec2<-crossprod(y,Y[,1])+r2
  #Here we take the sums of the reconaisance values and the leadership values.
  reconvictor<-sample(c(1,2),1,prob = c(rec1,rec2))
  #this line randomly generates a "recon victor" from the recon/leadership values
  front1str<-c(crossprod(x,X[,c(2,3,5,6,8,9)]))
  front2str<-c(crossprod(y,Y[,c(2,3,5,6,8,9)]))
  #here we determine the strengths of each army in the various possible combat scenarios
  frontvalues<-front1str/front2str
  if (reconvictor == 1) {fronttype<-which.max(frontvalues)}
  else  {fronttype<-which.min(frontvalues)}
  front1STR<-front1str[fronttype]
  front2STR<-front2str[fronttype]
  #here the "recon victor" chooses the "optimal" battle type which will be the one used
  if (fronttype==2|3) {casn<-4}
  else if (fronttype==4|5) {casn<-7}
  else {casn<-10}
  #this just sorts a value for the casualty column for later
  if (r1<r2) {
    CM<-t(array( c(c(rep(1,r2)),c(rep(1,r1),rep(0,r2-r1)))))}
  else if (r1 == r2) {
    CM<-t(array(rep(1,2*r1)))}
  else {
    CM<-t(array(c( c(rep(1,r1)),c(rep(1,r2),rep(0,r1-r2)))))}
  lob<-c(CM)
  #this retunrs a vector of 1s and 0s corresponding to the order in which the battle
  #will be fought by alowing each army to take a shot for each recon/leadership point
  #they have in an alternating fashion.
  for(i in 1:(r1+r2)) {
    #this line begins the itteration of ethe armies taking strikes at each other
    front1str<-c(crossprod(x,X[,c(2,3,5,6,8,9)]))
    front2str<-c(crossprod(y,Y[,c(2,3,5,6,8,9)]))
    #here we recalcualte army strength based on losses take so far.
    if ((sum(x)==0)|(sum(y)==0)) {}
    #we skip the iteration if any army has been wiped out
    else {
      if (i %% 2 != 0) {
        if (r1<r2) {
          #the baove two lines are just there to make sure the right army is fighting
          q1<-sample(c(1,2,3),1,prob=c(x*X[,casn]))
          #this detemines which unit is being struk this round based on the casualty
          #ratios and the number of units left.
          x[q1]<-x[q1] - (sample(c(0,1),1,prob = c(front1STR,front2STR))*(lob[i]))
        }
        #here we roll off the two army strengths against each other and if the roll is
        #sucessful then the opposing army takes a casulaty. The following lines are the
        #same process.
        else if (r2<r1)  {
          q2<-sample(c(1,2,3),1,prob=c(y*Y[,casn]))
          y[q2]<-y[q2] - (sample(c(1,0),1,prob = c(front1STR,front2STR))*(lob[i]))
        }
      }
      else if (i %% 2 == 0) {
        if (r2<r1) {
          q3<-sample(c(1,2,3),1,prob=c(x*X[,casn]))
          x[q3]<-x[q3] - (sample(c(0,1),1,prob = c(front1STR,front2STR))*(lob[i]))
        }
        else if (r1<r2)  {
          q4<-sample(c(1,2,3),1,prob=c(y*Y[,casn]))
          y[q4]<-y[q4] - (sample(c(1,0),1,prob = c(front1STR,front2STR))*(lob[i]))
        }
       
       
      }
    }
    }
  out<-c(fronttype,reconvictor,x,y)
  out}
  #the output is given in the form of a vector where the first value is the type of
#battle fought out of the 6 options (3 types either attacking or defending). The party
#that won the "recon battle" and finaly the two army compositions after the battle.

#This system doesn't give a winner as an outcome but I think it tells the GM enough
#so that they have a good idea of what to put in the update and it of course leaves
#some room for imagination!
  fun2(AUS,ITA,aus,ita,4,5)

Of course I wouldn't be putting effort in this project again if I didn't have a game which I was going to attach to it. So prepare yourself for my next game - an IOT in the style of the old I&B games set at the turn of the twentieth century called The Weeping Steel.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Combat calculator?

Art is dead.

 

[Crezth]

Combat calculator?

Art is dead.

Transformers: Age of Extinction
Global Box Office: $1.1B
Estimated Profit: $684M
Rotten Tomatoes: 18%
Profit per Rotten Tomatoes: $38,002,171

Combat calculator: more than meets the eye

 

[Lord of Elves]

View attachment 478025
Transformers: Age of Extinction
Global Box Office: $1.1B
Estimated Profit: $684M
Rotten Tomatoes: 18%
Profit per Rotten Tomatoes: $38,002,171

Combat calculator: more than meets the eye

"A wild Crezth has appeared"

Once upon a time there was a great land of sorcerers, whose magic was writing out incredibly nerdy military history tracts about how best to crush their enemies. That realm is now consigned to dust! its mysteries are lost. None remember the arts of that land's mystical inhabitants. The old ways are forgotten.

 

[Crezth]

I'm proud to see my reputation precede me and my hilarious posts about the integrity of art.

 

[JohannaK]

Plans never survive combat with the enemy. I feel like combat calculators need to have ample space for boni depending on the plans sent, but are necessary to introduce the random factor into the GM's consideration.

 

[Crezth]

So I've put together a combat calculator for use in IOTs. Some of you will remember that a while back I was trying to build a library of resources for IOT GMs to use - at the time the idea was seen as controversial because people thought it was an attempt to standardise IOTs. I wish to refute that straight away before that train gets started again, My aim is only to provide resources so that people who wouldn't otherwise want to GM a game might be able to.

Throughout my time as a GM here the hardest thing has always been deciding combat outcomes and such. The pursuit of a battle calculator that has enough room for tinkering while also providing a report of casualties has always been one of my goals. So here's what I've come up with:

Edit: Looked awful in CFC formatting will upload the R flie momentarily

Editedit: No idea how you do post attachments in new cfc I'll just copy paste the code and hope it isn't too offensive looking

Spoiler :

#Here is the code for the battle calculator that I have come up with. To use it simply
#run it in R, the two arrays and corresponding vectors below are there as examples and
#you can tinker with them to see the possible variations this calculator provides.



AUS<-array(c(0,1,0,1,0,2,2,1,2,2,1,1,2,2,1,2,0,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,1),c(3,10))
ITA<-array(c(0,1,0,1,0,2,2,1,2,2,1,1,2,2,1,2,0,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,1),c(3,10))
aus<-c(3,1,1)
ita<-c(2,1,2)

#Presented in this example we have three troop types as represented by the 3 rows
#of the array and the 3 entires in the vectors representing the army compositions
#of the two opposing forces. The first colum corresponds to the recconisance value
#provided by that unit type. Then follow three sets of 3x3 submatricies which
#correspond to three battle types - for example skirmish, pitched battle, flanking
#battle - the first two columsn are the attack and defense values and the third is the
#ratio by which casualties will be distributed.
#As a GM you could add more unit types or battle types to suit the needs of your
#setting or style of game, you could even simplify down to just one.


fun2<-function(X,Y,x,y,r1,r2){
#here we define the function that will output the battle results. X and Y are the arrays
#containing the unit data for each of the opposing forces (each gets their own in order
#to facotor in technological diferences or other bouses). The second two values are the
#army compositions as vectors and the last two represnt "leadership bonuses".
  Y[,c(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)]<-Y[,c(1,3,2,4,6,5,7,9,8,10)]
  #this line just swaps the attack and defence columsn for one of the matricies to make
  #things easier later.
  rec1<-crossprod(x,X[,1])+r1
  rec2<-crossprod(y,Y[,1])+r2
  #Here we take the sums of the reconaisance values and the leadership values.
  reconvictor<-sample(c(1,2),1,prob = c(rec1,rec2))
  #this line randomly generates a "recon victor" from the recon/leadership values
  front1str<-c(crossprod(x,X[,c(2,3,5,6,8,9)]))
  front2str<-c(crossprod(y,Y[,c(2,3,5,6,8,9)]))
  #here we determine the strengths of each army in the various possible combat scenarios
  frontvalues<-front1str/front2str
  if (reconvictor == 1) {fronttype<-which.max(frontvalues)}
  else  {fronttype<-which.min(frontvalues)}
  front1STR<-front1str[fronttype]
  front2STR<-front2str[fronttype]
  #here the "recon victor" chooses the "optimal" battle type which will be the one used
  if (fronttype==2|3) {casn<-4}
  else if (fronttype==4|5) {casn<-7}
  else {casn<-10}
  #this just sorts a value for the casualty column for later
  if (r1<r2) {
    CM<-t(array( c(c(rep(1,r2)),c(rep(1,r1),rep(0,r2-r1)))))}
  else if (r1 == r2) {
    CM<-t(array(rep(1,2*r1)))}
  else {
    CM<-t(array(c( c(rep(1,r1)),c(rep(1,r2),rep(0,r1-r2)))))}
  lob<-c(CM)
  #this retunrs a vector of 1s and 0s corresponding to the order in which the battle
  #will be fought by alowing each army to take a shot for each recon/leadership point
  #they have in an alternating fashion.
  for(i in 1:(r1+r2)) {
    #this line begins the itteration of ethe armies taking strikes at each other
    front1str<-c(crossprod(x,X[,c(2,3,5,6,8,9)]))
    front2str<-c(crossprod(y,Y[,c(2,3,5,6,8,9)]))
    #here we recalcualte army strength based on losses take so far.
    if ((sum(x)==0)|(sum(y)==0)) {}
    #we skip the iteration if any army has been wiped out
    else {
      if (i %% 2 != 0) {
        if (r1<r2) {
          #the baove two lines are just there to make sure the right army is fighting
          q1<-sample(c(1,2,3),1,prob=c(x*X[,casn]))
          #this detemines which unit is being struk this round based on the casualty
          #ratios and the number of units left.
          x[q1]<-x[q1] - (sample(c(0,1),1,prob = c(front1STR,front2STR))*(lob[i]))
        }
        #here we roll off the two army strengths against each other and if the roll is
        #sucessful then the opposing army takes a casulaty. The following lines are the
        #same process.
        else if (r2<r1)  {
          q2<-sample(c(1,2,3),1,prob=c(y*Y[,casn]))
          y[q2]<-y[q2] - (sample(c(1,0),1,prob = c(front1STR,front2STR))*(lob[i]))
        }
      }
      else if (i %% 2 == 0) {
        if (r2<r1) {
          q3<-sample(c(1,2,3),1,prob=c(x*X[,casn]))
          x[q3]<-x[q3] - (sample(c(0,1),1,prob = c(front1STR,front2STR))*(lob[i]))
        }
        else if (r1<r2)  {
          q4<-sample(c(1,2,3),1,prob=c(y*Y[,casn]))
          y[q4]<-y[q4] - (sample(c(1,0),1,prob = c(front1STR,front2STR))*(lob[i]))
        }
   
   
      }
    }
    }
  out<-c(fronttype,reconvictor,x,y)
  out}
  #the output is given in the form of a vector where the first value is the type of
#battle fought out of the 6 options (3 types either attacking or defending). The party
#that won the "recon battle" and finaly the two army compositions after the battle.

#This system doesn't give a winner as an outcome but I think it tells the GM enough
#so that they have a good idea of what to put in the update and it of course leaves
#some room for imagination!
  fun2(AUS,ITA,aus,ita,4,5)

Of course I wouldn't be putting effort in this project again if I didn't have a game which I was going to attach to it. So prepare yourself for my next game - an IOT in the style of the old I&B games set at the turn of the twentieth century called The Weeping Steel.

Someone's pithy remarks earlier (as well as Jojo's note that you gotta account for orders somehow) inspired me to remark on The Weeping Steel more seriously than not at all, so here goes nothing.

I've been hacking at the concept of combat simulation for a long time and I've attached 'tndm.xlsx' to this post to demonstrate one of my first attempts at executing the concepts in the Quantified Judgment Model, which I've uploaded someone's naval graduate school thesis at exploring the concepts therein. If you want to read the full QJM in its original form you need to find a copy of Numbers, Prediction, and War by Trevor Dupuy. The main utility of owning Dupuy's book is the indices where he exhaustively lists all the variables of warfare including weapon lethality indices and environmental factors and such. The Dupuy Institute occasionally ventures to foray in this area and posts an occasionally interesting article or two (e.g. this one about logistics) to this effect. My favorite part of this article is the following quotation:

The historical work done by Dupuy and HERO on logistics and combat appears unique, but it seems highly relevant. There is no lack of detailed data from which to conduct further inquiries. The only impediment appears to be lack of interest.

In other words, when folks like Disenfrancised and Symphony D. were examining this subject about a decade ago, they were delving into a field which is dense with the data and not so much dense with the analysis. Dupuy wrote his book in 1979.

Anyway, one of my favorite discussions on how to produce a combat simulation emerges from exactly one such conversation between Disenfrancised and S-Ducks, which I have preserved in this pastebin, against their will and frankly without their permission. If they appear out of the ether to denounce me for this I will scrub their names for the record and take credit for the entire conversation myself (it will be between me and my alter-ego, which is not difficult for me to imagine because i'm insane in the membrane). This is a joke, moderators, please carry on. Trigger warning: the previous paragraph contains a joke which suggests disagreement between individuals contributing to social disorder to the detriment of the forum. The views expressed therein are not wholly indicative of the truth which may not be fully represented by the opinions of Crezth et al.

The main thrust of the discussion in this pastebin is how to apply a combat resolver to an entire theater of war, which my pitiful excel sheet was never very good at doing (that didn't stop me from using it for Blackened Skies however because I'm a lazy hack). But, more fundamental than that is how you create a combat resolver, and that's what Robert Can't has accomplished here. If I'm reading this correctly it looks like you have force strengths "roll" against each other iteratively dealing casualties against them. That's not a bad idea, but you now have a problem where you need to validate that the casualty outcomes are realistic. In my excel sheet I used a table of "average" casualty ratios for the victorious and defeated parties and modified it by small % nudges based on the actual course of battle (so that a 40:1 force ratio would not cleave to the "average"). I never quite got the balance right, however, which bothered me but probably shouldn't have surprised me as I was applying a linearized solution to a non-linear problem.

I've become somewhat more conservative in my expectation of sim-systems since then because it's a lot of work to really build the system you want and doing it alone is hellish. However, I definitely admire your effort and I like that you've created a simple calculator for doing the job. I am not a Ruby person so I am having trouble perceiving the model but I think the optimal front type system is essentially a tactics system like you have in Hearts of Iron. That is something I'd really like to expand if I took this system and used it for myself, but it is indeed a lot of work building the tactics catalogue. I'd also look at the casualty system and tweaking it to try to make realistic-seeming outcomes and compare it to historical battle data (look up the HERO system for historical battle data, which is extremely dense but it can be helpful and interesting to look at for this kind of chicanery).

Finally, in the pastebin I linked Dis mentions the concept of "dial settings," which are basically the top-level command settings the armies have before they go into battle. He only mentions two examples but he contextualizes it like this:

You assemble an army by dropping companies from your company list into sections on the army page (all this will be done by the player in their spreadsheet). Sections currently are [Scout], [Picket*], [Vanguard], [Main], [Flank], [Reserve], [Support], [CCC]. On the army page the player will also have a few dials to adjust; things like a [Conservative-Aggressive] axis, and a [Reckless-Caution]** axis.

My note: Picket is defensive scouting, and Reckless-Caution is how you treat "unknowns" or substitute lack of information for ACTION. As you can see the rabbit hole can go pretty deep on modeling agonistic contests. This is why I became an AI guy.

Anyway, such dials and this kind of player-engagement is how he envisioned including the player: by putting army assembly and their priorities and commands in the hand of the players. So you can start to imagine how you can build up a relatively simple "game" from this based on a complex underbelly of verified & validated simulations. This is also how Paradox Interactive grand strategy games tend to work, especially in the combat department, where Paradox chiefs have insisted that their battle simulator (which is based on the same model across all games even if they apply it in different ways) is one of the best. However, their systems tend to lack fidelity and a certain sense of personal or direct engagement. This is theoretically where the niche exists for IOT or "proper" wargame simulations, such as you see at tabletop gaming conventions, where you can witness truly breathtaking simulations played out on gigantic boards with lovingly crafted miniatures, pips, spreadsheets, lists, and oh my godddddd. I envision a capability to "strike the balance" between these two by commuting lower-level command tasks to minor AI contests and maintaining the investment of top-level command by implementing, say, a RISK-style province system.

To give an example of how I'd make a game in this vein, I was thinking a World War 1 game would be a lot of fun and quite engaging if you gave the battles a sense of persistence and tied the logistic demands of the war (how it strains the economy and how it strains your civil society) to the ongoing grind of the trench warfare. On a lower-level, you'd be simulating the terrible slogging struggle of generals in the trenches, limited in the scope of their options and limited in what they can realistically accomplish (so the setting fits the technical limitations of our systems, you see?), and on the higher-level, you'd be simulating the general strategy ("Let's put troops in Egypt and let's go on the defensive in Côte-du-Rhone.") as well as free to engage whatever wages-of-destruction mechanics you wanted to conjure up (imagine the economy starts out strong and as stuff gets nationalized/destroyed it's all just slowly downhill while the army gets bigger and bigger... which is moreorless exactly what happened).

tl;dr art is dead

 

[Omega124]

Honestly I see myself agreeing with Lord here. With all due respect to RC, IOT has been marching away from Thor's Cult of the Offensive, and from the race towards the stat crunch bottom. Even Sone's latest game is less about the mechanics and more about that sweet near-futuristic cyberpunk setting.

I'm not against the automation of combat in itself, but canning an interesting, never before done project because you felt you didn't have enough players to do it justice (which is fair enough, if you think that's the case, so be it), only to launch a new project solely to advertise a combat calculator just feels.... disappointing. And it looks like, since its tagged as an Iron and Blood spiritual successor, that war won't even necessarily (and shouldn't) be the main focus of the game anyways, making the reliance of the combat calculator for advertisement misplaced. For if you make war your central defining mechanic, you're just making a war game that players will try to win, instead of a collaborative story.

Perhaps I'm just being a Negative Nelly and that this is only just a small part of a greater project. But RC, just remember, what you decide to emphasize is what the players are going to get out of your game. If you focus on player vs player conflict to the exclusion of everything else, you're just setting yourself up to make a game of nothing but conflict. There needs to be incentives for world building and positive interaction.

 

[Crezth]

Don't listen to the liberal artístes, RC. Embrace the art and beauty of engineering and science.