IOT Developmental Thread

[Tee Kay]

And I'm still in the dark on combat. I'd suggest using a dice type system - I.E:

Spoiler :

- All units have an automatic defense of ten.
- Every tech adds one to that number.
- Occasionally random modifiers like weather and terrain MIGHT be applied by the combat GM. MIGHT.
- A D20 is rolled for each side every turn. A 1 is an auto-miss, a 20 is an auto-hit.
- To hit manually, your die roll and tech modifier(same as with the defense modifier) must beat the enemy defense rating.
- A battle ends when one side has taken a certain amount of hits - I was thinking 3 to keep battles easier to calculate, but does anyone have an opinion?
- Same rules for sea combat.
- The only person who really needs to know all this is the combat GM, a role I volunteer to fill.

I'd like to put this to a vote. I'm thinking something a bit simpler then Tailless' might be for the best. This lets nation's tech come into play and doesn't complicate the game too much.

I thought my system was simple enough; just a base strength plus 0 to 50% of that strength added to it by RNG .

I'm a bit confused by your proposal though, especially when and how the random modifier will be applied, and how tech and die rolls come together when attacking. Can you give an example of how a battle would be done?

One more question: will provinces without an army also gain an automatic defense when attacked? IMHO, it's still the best way to model forts without delving into the mess of siege warfare.

I'd also suggest an adviser/great leader/whatever you want to call them mechanic. Like there's one that gives a naval modifier, one that gives a land modifier, one that gives an extra buck or so in income, one that decreases research costs - you get the idea. Players have to spend money to track them down, but the benefits might be worth it. Let's vote on that too, shall we?

I personally like the idea, but it might be too complicated for IOT. Do you have something specific you'd like to implement?

And did we ever decide if the Native Americans were penalized?

I left it out of the second draft, because IIRC Joe and several others were opposed to it.

The only one I really have a problem with is the taking away of unit costs, I still think they should be in, as 1) To make sure someone doesn't over expand their army, because if they do, they won't have any money to spend on other things, 2) It makes money/gold all the more valuable.

Well, the units already costs gold to build, so I guess you mean unit upkeep. We can subtract unit upkeep costs from the income we get each turn, and if our upkeep > income some units will be forcibly disbanded. How does that sound?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I got this PM from a... concerned IOTer, who could not be with us. I'll just answer it here:

1- Gold- Gold can be gained by territories as you said, but why shouldn't you be able to save if you'd like? It just defeats the purpose of diversity.

It can potentially create too much confusion and slows the game down. Joecoolyo talked about this a few posts back.

2- Technological Development- I think its needed, especially if we're moving towards the modern era.

It is still included, albeit in simplified form.

3- Stability- We need it. I'm thinking 6 levels like RFC but three could work. I don't want it dead though.

It was becoming rather too complicated, and really we only really needed it because of the casus belli system; stability's main purpose is to discourage people from starting wars without a casus belli, and I think simply taking away half their income if they do that serves the purpose pretty well. Adding more complexity risks making this game takes too much time to play.

 

[Lighthearter]

I thought my system was simple enough; just a base strength plus 0 to 50% of that strength added to it by RNG .

I'm a bit confused by your proposal though, especially when and how the random modifier will be applied, and how tech and die rolls come together when attacking. Can you give an example of how a battle would be done?

One more question: will provinces without an army also gain an automatic defense when attacked? IMHO, it's still the best way to model forts without delving into the mess of siege warfare.

Hmmm. Like player A invades player B - B gets a fort like you said, but maybe a fort army, being smaller then a real army, can't take as many hits?

Anyway, round one - GM rolls dice for player A. 12. Adds 12 to the base 10 bonus. Adds his level three combat technology bonus - 3, one per level. 25. Player B is rolled for. 11 + 10 = 21 + tech. Tech modifier is 3 - total 24. B takes a hit and the process repeats until one army has taken three(two for a garrison?).

I personally like the idea, but it might be too complicated for IOT. Do you have something specific you'd like to implement?

An idea I was bouncing around for Star Wars Galactic Empires was that each nation could have a panel of 3 advisers who gave bonuses. The power of the bonus (I.E: +3 to attack vs +1 to attack) would determine the expense of tracking these people down and recruiting them. In addition, you can only look for generic advisers, and you get what you get. Was thinking that they could be a good tool, but perhaps to complex.

I left it out of the second draft, because IIRC Joe and several others were opposed to it.

Good. Now I feel safe about starting in the Americas and colonizing Spain

- Lighthearter

 

[W|M]

Good. Now I feel safe about starting in the Americas and colonizing Spain

Don´t copy me! (but I´m doing Portugal instead of Spain).

 

[Tee Kay]

Hmmm. Like player A invades player B - B gets a fort like you said, but maybe a fort army, being smaller then a real army, can't take as many hits?

Anyway, round one - GM rolls dice for player A. 12. Adds 12 to the base 10 bonus. Adds his level three combat technology bonus - 3, one per level. 25. Player B is rolled for. 11 + 10 = 21 + tech. Tech modifier is 3 - total 24. B takes a hit and the process repeats until one army has taken three(two for a garrison?).

That sounds more complicated than what I had earlier, but since you volunteered for the job I personally wouldn't mind if you're feeling up to it.

An idea I was bouncing around for Star Wars Galactic Empires was that each nation could have a panel of 3 advisers who gave bonuses. The power of the bonus (I.E: +3 to attack vs +1 to attack) would determine the expense of tracking these people down and recruiting them. In addition, you can only look for generic advisers, and you get what you get. Was thinking that they could be a good tool, but perhaps to complex.

How long will these advisors last though, once you hire them?

I think it's a nice touch, but maybe too complex for this game..?

 

[Joecoolyo]

Well, the units already costs gold to build, so I guess you mean unit upkeep. We can subtract unit upkeep costs from the income we get each turn, and if our upkeep > income some units will be forcibly disbanded. How does that sound?

Sorry if I got a little confused (costs and upkeep can mean pretty much the same thing, another oddity of the English language). But once again, sounds good.

As for Lighthearters combat, I still think it's rather complicated compared to tailles'. Remember, complexity may be fun, and it may lead to a more rewarding experience, but it will take longer and slow down the game. I want to keep the game going (esp. wars) at a reasonable pace, and if we get a massive alliance war, I don't want that to slow us down one bit.

Anyone else want to weigh in on this issue?

 

[Cull]

Kiss.

 

[Tee Kay]

If you don't mind, Joecoolyo, I'm calling an official vote and hope more people will actually vote this time.

Current Votes

Please vote for each dot points separately, and if you vote against something please say what it is that you oppose so we know what to work on

Revised Draft Rule
- Starting/Expansion rules
- Economy rules
- Research/Technology rules
- War and Diplomacy rules
- Housekeeping rules rules

Ideas from Lighthearter
- Lighthearter's Combat System (LCS)
- Advisors

Unit Upkeep
- Subtract a small amount of gold per turn as unit upkeep costs, and forcibly disband units if upkeep > income.

Poll will close 48 hours from the time stamp for this post. - Edit: so, 7.03 pm Saturday Melbourne time.

The Cabinet

So far this is the GM line-up:

Executive GM (responsible for updates, claims, diplomacy, discipline) - Joecoolyo
Economy and Technology GM - Taillesskangaru
Combat GM - Lighthearter

Edit: CivGeneral volunteers for Cartographer
Omega volunteers for Combat, though apparently he wants to simulate battles with PC games.
Edit 2: Annnn...Droopy volunteers for summary write-up

If anyone want to suggest and/or volunteer for a position you can.

 

[Mathalamus]

- Starting/Expansion rules

accepted

- Economy rules

rejected

- Research/Technology rules

rejected. all research should be handled by the GM. he will give technolgy to every nation once it is invented in history.

- War and Diplomacy rules

accepted

- Housekeeping rules rules

accepted, but only because there isnt a post limit.

- Lighthearter's Combat System (LCS)

rejected

- Advisors

rejected.

Unit Upkeep
- Subtract a small amount of gold per turn as unit upkeep costs, and forcibly disband units if upkeep > income.

Accepted.

 

[W|M]

if you don't mind, joecoolyo, i'm calling an official vote and hope more people will actually vote this time.

current votes

please vote for each dot points separately, and if you vote against something please say what it is that you oppose so we know what to work on

revised draft rule
- starting/expansion rules
- economy rules
- research/technology rules
- war and diplomacy rules
- housekeeping rules rules

ideas from lighthearter
- lighthearter's combat system (lcs)
- advisors

unit upkeep
- subtract a small amount of gold per turn as unit upkeep costs, and forcibly disband units if upkeep > income.

poll will close 48 hours from the time stamp for this post. - edit: So, 7.03 pm saturday melbourne time.

the cabinet

so far this is the gm line-up:

Executive gm (responsible for updates, claims, diplomacy, discipline) - joecoolyo
economy and technology gm - taillesskangaru
combat gm - lighthearter

if anyone want to suggest and/or volunteer for a position you can.

yes to all

 

[GenMarshall]

Revised Draft Rule
- Starting/Expansion rules
- Economy rules
- Research/Technology rules
- War and Diplomacy rules
- Housekeeping rules rules

Accept

Ideas from Lighthearter
- Lighthearter's Combat System (LCS)
- Advisors

Reject

Unit Upkeep
- Subtract a small amount of gold per turn as unit upkeep costs, and forcibly disband units if upkeep > income.

Accept

The Cabinet

So far this is the GM line-up:

Executive GM (responsible for updates, claims, diplomacy, discipline) - Joecoolyo
Economy and Technology GM - Taillesskangaru
Combat GM - Lighthearter

If anyone want to suggest and/or volunteer for a position you can.

Is there a possibility for me to volunteer/suggest a cartographer position (Basically responsible for claims)

 

[Tee Kay]

Sure.

 

[Omega124]

I volunteer as a candidate for battle GM, because I have games to use for simulation. I vote "AYe" to all.

 

[Tee Kay]

I volunteer as a candidate for battle GM, because I have games to use for simulation. I vote "AYe" to all.

Currently, we're not planning to use games for simulation - at least, not for determining actual battle results.

 

[DroopyTofu]

Revised Draft Rule
- Starting/Expansion rules
- Economy rules
- Research/Technology rules
- War and Diplomacy rules
- Housekeeping rules rules

Yes to all of these

Ideas from Lighthearter
- Lighthearter's Combat System (LCS)
- Advisors

No, but only because I liked tailless' better.

Unit Upkeep
- Subtract a small amount of gold per turn as unit upkeep costs, and forcibly disband units if upkeep > income.

No. I think it would make it to complex. I say just let you have as many as you can buy.

The Cabinet

So far this is the GM line-up:

Executive GM (responsible for updates, claims, diplomacy, discipline) - Joecoolyo
Economy and Technology GM - Taillesskangaru
Combat GM - Lighthearter

Edit: CivGeneral volunteers for Cartographer
Omega volunteers for Combat, though apparently he wants to simulate battles with PC games.

If anyone want to suggest and/or volunteer for a position you can.

I'll volunteer to write up a summary of each update. I need a catchy name, though.

 

[Mathalamus]

I volunteer as a candidate for battle GM, because I have games to use for simulation. I vote "AYe" to all.

i vote to deny him this. he doesn't like me so he may fudge the battle into Byzantium's disadvantage. i suggest someone who isnt willing to kill me.

 

[Cull]

WTH? He'll be neutral.

YES to all but LH's ideas. A bit too complex for my taste.

 

[Arakhor]

Byzantium doesn't exist before the game starts and with an attitude like that, Math, you might as well as refuse to play in the same game as him. If any player cheats, they should be slung out on their ear.

 

[Mathalamus]

Byzantium doesn't exist before the game starts and with an attitude like that, Math, you might as well as refuse to play in the same game as him. If any player cheats, they should be slung out on their ear.

how will we know its cheating? a very subtle change here or there can mean total victory ofor whatever nation is attacking me. all the time.

 

[Arakhor]

If you can't trust the moderators to play fairly, don't play at all. It's that simple.

 

[Mathalamus]

If you can't trust the moderators to play fairly, don't play at all. It's that simple.

i can trust everyone. exept omega and domination. i just dont think they have proven their ability to be impartial when it comes to me.