IOT Developmental Thread

[Lighthearter]

OK, I think that there should be no restrictions on the nations of America. But let's do this:

In general, would you start in the AMERICAS with these restrictions in place? (Not sign-ups, but would you in general?)

I would NOT.

- Lighthearter

 

[ilduce349]

Because it was one continent, no reason for tech levels

 

[W|M]

Middle East, N. Africa and Russia was far behind Western Europe.

 

[ilduce349]

Not really. This is based right before the industrial rev

 

[W|M]

Exactly.

 

[Arakhor]

1453 - the fall of Byzantium and the beginning of the Renaissance. Hardly anything minor

 

[W|M]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1453

Pretty major stuff

 

[DroopyTofu]

What if we just start at 1500? That way, it would make some sense to have people starting in the Americas as either natives or as European colonies (Brazil, America, etc.). That would settle so many problems.

Does anyone agree with me that it is a bit absurd to try and claim that some event happened and destroyed all the nations in the world, but then the Europeans still reached the Americas before they did in RL?

 

[ilduce349]

I agree with Droopy

 

[Mathalamus]

What if we just start at 1500? That way, it would make some sense to have people starting in the Americas as either natives or as European colonies (Brazil, America, etc.). That would settle so many problems.

Does anyone agree with me that it is a bit absurd to try and claim that some event happened and destroyed all the nations in the world, but then the Europeans still reached the Americas before they did in RL?

we aready voted to start in 1453.

and, only the governments were destroyed. the infrastructure, the people, technolgoy is all completely intact.

 

[ilduce349]

That would be impossible. I am not going to join giving the circumstances.

 

[Lighthearter]

People, stop arguing and just answer my question. We can settle this in a civilized way.

If the majority of people wouldn't start in America then it's not fair to include the mechanic as it will drive people away.

And who cares about the Cataclysm backstory? I just know the world's open. We don't need to care why - just focus on playing the game.

- Lighthearter

 

[Mathalamus]

If the majority of people wouldn't start in America then it's not fair to include the mechanic as it will drive people away.

the option of restarting is still avaible.

you can start out s a nation in the americas, lose on purpose (for fun) and simply restart elsewhere.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What if we just start at 1500? That way, it would make some sense to have people starting in the Americas as either natives or as European colonies (Brazil, America, etc.). That would settle so many problems.

Does anyone agree with me that it is a bit absurd to try and claim that some event happened and destroyed all the nations in the world, but then the Europeans still reached the Americas before they did in RL?

I agree with your first paragraph. I also do agree with your second one, but the second one is kinda irrelevant. Start in 1500, its a lot easier.

we aready voted to start in 1453.

and, only the governments were destroyed. the infrastructure, the people, technolgoy is all completely intact.

Well, Revote. It was really done just for you anyway.

The second paragraph is correct though.

That would be impossible. I am not going to join giving the circumstances.

I wouldn't really use threatening not to join as leverage, though I'm not really allowed to join, making it irrelevant. But that's an issue to be handled in PM.

As for the rules that are set up, I'd still join ATM if I was able. However, I also love IOT and would have just about joined no matter what provided it wasn't either banning or specifically discriminating against me or someone else without reason, or was using Lighthearter's combat system (This isn't personal, I just wouldn't have the time, patience, or desire to do that.)

 

[Double A]

(Ignore the stupid bit).

Then why don't you use

 

[Joecoolyo]

How about this.

To stop all the bickering:

-All nations are on equal footing unless the leader chooses not to be
-The date has already been discussed and voted on, it will not change
-IOT is not a historical simulator, the faster you realize that, the better it will be
-The time period is mainly in place for flavor, to give you a chance to roleplay as something different for a change

 

[GhostWriter16]

How about this.

To stop all the bickering:

-All nations are on equal footing unless the leader chooses not to be
-The date has already been discussed and voted on, it will not change
-IOT is not a historical simulator, the faster you realize that, the better it will be
-The time period is mainly in place for flavor, to give you a chance to roleplay as something different for a change

Agree with #1, except it should be specified you can't choose to be stronger then the others.

I don't recall to #2 being voted on, but if it was I suppose we can drop it. Curiosity question, can Europe expand in the Americas at the beginning?

3. Correct.

4. OK.

 

[Mathalamus]

Agree with #1, except it should be specified you can't choose to be stronger then the others.

some nations in 1453 were stronger than others. nations liek Byzantium were barely existing, while others such as holy Rome was still strong.

 

[GhostWriter16]

some nations in 1453 were stronger than others. nations liek Byzantium were barely existing, while others such as holy Rome was still strong.

This isn't history.

I was simply clarifying Joecoolyo's point.

You can either choose to be on an equal footing or choose to give yourself a negative handicap, but you can't choose to get a positive handicap.

 

[Mathalamus]

but you can't choose to get a positive handicap.

why dont nations choose one positive handicap for a nation as a whole?

for example, Venice will have a positive handicap in navy, the Ottomans have a handicap in army and Byzantium has a handicap of defense.

(since this isn't history, you can choose your own within reason)