IOT Developmental Thread

Yeah, except the fact of all the links I/others gave you, and then you say RENAISSANCE HAS NO BIG ALLIANCES GRR. THERE ARE NO ALLIANCE IN ALLIANCE. GRR. like some teenager. Don't look at my age of course.

The reversal casus belli system is useless, as you c an make claims up such as "want to protect my holding my joining this alliance" 10/10.

The GM has to approve and there were no world wars back then. I didn't say there were "No alliances" but kingdoms were smaller so that a nation or nearby nations formed an alliance. Not England and China. Maybe limit it to your own continent or people bordering you?

Sorry, Dom, but for some reason I doubt you have much knowledge of the time period. You should probably look up the Italian City-States, and the Holy Roman Empire.

See above. All alliances were local. There were not world wars back then. There were local wars, and for every war that used an alliance many did not.
 
Crusades, Thirty Years War and Hundred Years War if you don't want to do ONLY EUROPE WHICH ISN'T THAT BIG. Your statements are based on false presumptions. And if you want GM approval on everything, go play NES. After all, isn't IOT all about freedom/not GM control as ilduce says?
 
The GM has to approve and there were no world wars back then. I didn't say there were "No alliances" but kingdoms were smaller so that a nation or nearby nations formed an alliance. Not England and China. Maybe limit it to your own continent or people bordering you?



See above. All alliances were local. There were not world wars back then. There were local wars, and for every war that used an alliance many did not.

Be that as it many there were often entanglements of alliances. You cannot represent in any realism whatsoever a nation RPG in which you can only ally with one person at a time. That's just dumb.
 
Crusades, Thirty Years War and Hundred Years War if you don't want to do ONLY EUROPE WHICH ISN'T THAT BIG. Your statements are based on false presumptions. And if you want GM approval on everything, go play NES. After all, isn't IOT all about freedom/not GM control as ilduce says?

Your last point is valid and I agree.

As for the Crusades, that was a specific war for specific reason, but even that was just the middle east for a battleground. England should not be able to sign an alliance with, say, China.

And, for fun purposes it should be limited, if no other reason. World War in Renaissance = Not as much fun.
 
Your last point is valid and I agree.

As for the Crusades, that was a specific war for specific reason, but even that was just the middle east for a battleground. England should not be able to sign an alliance with, say, China.

And, for fun purposes it should be limited, if no other reason. World War in Renaissance = Not as much fun.

You wouldn't have a global war during the Renaissance. It'd be logistically impossible, just limit the amount of armies you can send across the sea/how long it takes them to get there and you'll kill all this, "Japan declared war on England in 1423!"
 
Your last point is valid and I agree.

As for the Crusades, that was a specific war for specific reason, but even that was just the middle east for a battleground. England should not be able to sign an alliance with, say, China.

And, for fun purposes it should be limited, if no other reason. World War in Renaissance = Not as much fun.

Actually, the Crusades covered Asia Minor, the Middle East, Egypt, and North Africa.The reasons are many. The fact that the Holy Land was in Muslim hands was one, but so was the fact that the pope wanted the European nations to stop fighting and causing war. There are other reasons as well. So yes, but not really.

And I agree with LoE. Change the combat and it won't happen. Also, Silk Road. During ROMAN times, they knew of China. So the whole CHINA CAN'T SIGN ALLIANCE WITH ENGLAND is false and based on false facts.
 
You wouldn't have a global war during the Renaissance. It'd be logistically impossible, just limit the amount of armies you can send across the sea/how long it takes them to get there and you'll kill all this, "Japan declared war on England in 1423!"

I know but the game didn't work that way. If they did this it would work though.
 
World wars shouldn't happen in this game, since we made war very expensive. Armies require maintenance, attacking requires expansion points, no casus belli (has to be approved by the war GM) equals 50% reduction of income. If people just join wars willy nilly, the results won't be very pretty.
 
World wars shouldn't happen in this game, since we made war very expensive. Armies require maintenance, attacking requires expansion points, no casus belli (has to be approved by the war GM) equals 50% reduction of income. If people just join wars willy nilly, the results won't be very pretty.

Well, you are right about the crusades and stuff, but many wars happened back then and they weren't world wars. I want non-world wars to be possible, especially in the Renaissance.

And really, when was there a defense pact back then, as opposed to an alliance of convienience. I'd love to see players have to pay for binding treaties, and I'd like to see free trade agreements increase your gold the same amount embargoes decrease it.

And, start over the game of course.

EDIT: @Cull- I'd agree in a modern game and MAYBE an industrial game (Its pushing it but if its 1860 I'd be OK with it.) But not in the Renaissance, as the first world war was MUCH later than the Renaissance.
 
No it wasn't fool. Thirty Year War Middle of the 1600s. And I'm sure there's more, but my history on the broader scope is lacking in general compared to Dachs and what not.
 
Or perhaps the War of Spanish Succession?

Hell, even the American Revolutionary War featured a bunch of players.
 
Only the SYW, American Revolution, WWI, and WWII could be considered global wars. However, the American Revolution major battles were in the Caribbean and the Channel, while the Asian holdings and the thirteen colonies more of a minor sideshow. WWI was more so of European powers and their colonies, and can be considered a European war. SYW is the same as WWI. Napleonic wars the same.

Really only WWII can be conisdered a global war by the strictest sense.

It is interesting to note that global wars(speaking of Eurasia and Africa) could have happened, but didn't due to the fact that such a war would be costly, and did not make sense. Even during the Industrial and Modern times.

So really world wars should be able to happen, but they shouldn't happen, so what Joe is proposing is right.

EDIT: War of Spanish Succession seems more so of Europeans and their allies, and did not draw upon much of the world. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WaroftheSpanishSuccession.png
 
Or perhaps the War of Spanish Succession?

Hell, even the American Revolutionary War featured a bunch of players.

England, America, and France.

Not world wars.

And besides, 1 VS 1 or 2 VS 2 wars were more fun in general. I'd prefer to have to pay for DPs or something to make it happen less. That is, except in the modern era.

EDIT: In general back then big wars happened because many players had a common goal they wanted achieved. Not because they had a piece of paper telling them too.
 
See my above post. They could happen, but in any era it didn't make sense to go into such a war that draws upon the global scale, and WWII is the only war that could be considered a world war.
 
England, America, and France.

Not world wars.

And besides, 1 VS 1 or 2 VS 2 wars were more fun in general. I'd prefer to have to pay for DPs or something to make it happen less. That is, except in the modern era.

EDIT: In general back then big wars happened because many players had a common goal they wanted achieved. Not because they had a piece of paper telling them too.

If the common goal left a waste of death and ruins, not really. And the paper comment is stupid and has no relevance.

See post WWII China and Europe for proof.
 
Back
Top Bottom