IOT Developmental Thread

[Tani Coyote]

IOT V will be the community created version. That's final. I'm not letting this thread go to waste.

And IOT II will be my version. Problem solved.

Be mature about this Tanicius.

I'm not saying you all can't create your own game. But to restrict my ability to continue my promise is something I simply cannot accept.

Alternatively, you guys can create an entirely new game. Why must you use the name I coined? That's probably my entire grievance: the name.

Let the people decide which they want to play.

Wouldn't that affect gameplay? The only people to be game mods are the people actually playing, so other nations would rather not attack the person who calculates battles.

Having impartial people can be quite cumbersome...

@Tanicius:
Have you decided on how combat will work? I do have Blitzkrieg 2: FOTR, but I'm not sure if that will run AI vs. AI simulations.

I'd be happy to let other players run sims, but that runs the risk of fudged numbers.

I've created multiple options to solve combat, and will let the attackers decide which method they want to use.

Which would you rather have in IOT V, 16 new rules created by Tanicius, or community developed rules that are all agreed upon together?

Good thing I'm planning IOT II and not IOT V.

Therefore, there should be no problems.

Other than the label... but why can't you all change the name to something else? Insanity Offtopicum is more appropriate at times.

Let me just say I don't want to join another game and see it crash and burn again.

Hence my:

A) Development of rules on experience, and

B) Creating an ex cathedra clause to allow sudden rule changes in response to anything. Thor experimented with it; I'm making it official.

So let me ask you this. Which would you rather have?

A game which could be created tomorrow, but won't last more than a month before it collapses, as seen with every other player created version of this game.

Your complete lack of confidence in my management capability is frowned upon.

Mind you, my version has community-recommended rules. I take these into account and make the final decision. Kind of like a Presidency with the advice and consent of the Senate, but with only the advice.

 

[Tee Kay]

I think the fundamental problem is that there's no real way to win, so we always go apeshit crazy and destroy everything.

It's the same story with the LazyNESes, actually, and some of those lasted quite a while.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I think the fundamental problem is that there's no real way to win, so we always go apeshit crazy and destroy everything.

I don't think it's the lack of winning more than just some of the more lax rules that are being abused.

That's the entire reason why this thread exits, as to come up ideas and solutions so these game ending world wars either don't happen, or are handled in a way were they don't destroy the game.

If you have any ideas please offer them up, we're trying to collect as many as we can before we all vote on them

 

[Tani Coyote]

I'd say the victory condition is simple:

Unite the world through conquest, diplomacy, or sheer economic might.

Or rather, let it be like the real world:

There is no victory. Only influence and leverage. MAD without nukes, but with actions taken as if they did exist. Being gangraped is the new nuke.

 

[Tee Kay]

Alternatively, you guys can create an entirely new game. Why must you use the name I coined? That's probably my entire grievance: the name.

Fine. We'll go with Imperium Civfanatium

 

[Lighthearter]

Combat - I had a thought. We use a grid-based system. People create squads in the metagame (you guys can think up HOW) and deploy them on this:

But - what happens is a neutral party agrees to adjudicate the battle. The grid is modified to represent various terrains - look at my example(bad I know but hey!):

The participants place their units, which are affected by the terrain types, which are color-coded and explained with a key and the neutral host updates the grid every battle "turn" on the fighting, which gets either its own thread or is entirely PMs. You'll have to work that out. Not sure yet how the die rolling for attacks goes, but anyone else have any brilliant insights?

- Lighthearter

 

[Tani Coyote]

Fine. We'll go with Imperium Civfanatium

Works for me.

IOT can be based on authoritarianism, ICF can be based on democracy. We shall see which one emerges victorious!

 

[Reiser]

If you have any ideas please offer them up, we're trying to collect as many as we can before we all vote on them

Here's an idea: Why doesn't Tanicius post his rules then have the community (as you were talking about) vote on whether to change them or not? Then the members could post their suggestions on what to add to or delete from the rules. TF's version could just be a starting point.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Here's an idea: Why doesn't Tanicius post his rules then have the community (as you were talking about) vote on whether to change them or not? Then the members could post their suggestions on what to add to or delete from the rules. TF's version could just be a starting point.

That would work, but I'm greedy and paranoid.

I'm afraid that if I supply all the rules, somebody could steal IOT 2 from me.

I take this far too seriously.

Furthermore, I like the idea of two competing Imperium games: One based on benevolent dictatorship and the other on democracy. We shall let time decide who is victorious.

Go with tailless' idea; I only want the IOT name. Everything else is fine and dandy with me.

 

[Tee Kay]

Combat - I had a thought. We use a grid-based system. People create squads in the metagame (you guys can think up HOW) and deploy them on this:

But - what happens is a neutral party agrees to adjudicate the battle. The grid is modified to represent various terrains - look at my example(bad I know but hey!):

The participants place their units, which are affected by the terrain types, which are color-coded and explained with a key and the neutral host updates the grid every battle "turn" on the fighting, which gets either its own thread or is entirely PMs. You'll have to work that out. Not sure yet how the die rolling for attacks goes, but anyone else have any brilliant insights?

- Lighthearter

Would this mean creating new maps for every single battle? Considering the scale of the game, with potentially 20+ attacks being launched in different regions of the world each turn, I think it will be way too complicated.

Thorvald (the reigning GM) actually experimented with simulating battles in Operation Flashpoint, but the number of battles each turn was too high to deal with.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Hence why a simple system(that or multiple battle simulator people) is needed.

Dice/coins and such can be fudged, but they're easy.

 

[Mad Man]

That would work, but I'm greedy and paranoid.

I'm afraid that if I supply all the rules, somebody could steal IOT 2 from me.

I take this far too seriously.

Furthermore, I like the idea of two competing Imperium games: One based on benevolent dictatorship and the other on democracy. We shall let time decide who is victorious.

Go with tailless' idea; I only want the IOT name. Everything else is fine and dandy with me.

the fact that this thread even exists means we all take this a hell of alot more seriously then we should.

 

[Tee Kay]

Here's an idea: Why doesn't Tanicius post his rules then have the community (as you were talking about) vote on whether to change them or not? Then the members could post their suggestions on what to add to or delete from the rules. TF's version could just be a starting point.

Yes, why don't we? Taniciusfox? Your move.

Edit: bloody crossposts!

 

[Joecoolyo]

And IOT II will be my version. Problem solved.

Ugh, if you wish then, but please, call it something else. There's already been an IOT II, making another one will just be confusing.

I'm not saying you all can't create your own game. But to restrict my ability to continue my promise is something I simply cannot accept.

I'm not restricting anything, if anything you seem to be restricting mine. By creating a new one now, many people would be drawn to it rather than developing a community created version that won't crash and burn.

Alternatively, you guys can create an entirely new game. Why must you use the name I coined? That's probably my entire grievance: the name.

Well, it's a pretty good name, hence why we like to use it. Though if your so persistent in creating another IOT II, then I guess we'll rename. Another thing the community can decide

But for now, I will continue calling it IOT V just because it is the 5th version in the series.

Your complete lack of confidence in my management capability is frowned upon.

Mind you, my version has community-recommended rules. I take these into account and make the final decision. Kind of like a Presidency with the advice and consent of the Senate, but with only the advice.

Yes, but history tells us player created rules tend not to work. I for one, thought Thorvald's version would be the end all IOT, but look what ended up happening to it.

Thus why I'm tired of player created versions and this time would like to create a community version.

EDIT: crossposts! so many crossposts! About half of what I say here can be safely ignored Tanicus, I'm just to lazy to edit it out

 

[Joecoolyo]

Fack, this is turning into IOT! So many crossposts!!!

EDIT: I like the idea of ICF. I'll put it in the OP.

I'll also link Lighthearter's post.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Yes, why don't we? Taniciusfox? Your move.

Well there's the ex cathedra clause(Rule 5) which allows the GM to make decisions unilaterally affecting the game, but hopefully with the advice of the players. Having the final say doesn't excuse being a power-hungry jackass.

Then there's rule 13, which covers anti-spam(how appropriate it's the unlucky number!): "Anti-Spam Measures:

13a. You are limited to five posts per 24 hours, and the post limit is not cumulative. Discuss details in private, or on your userpages. Then post the FINAL results on the page. IOT gets brought down by too much unnecessary content. GM updates, battle orders, and claims do not count towards this limit; everything else does.

Think quality of posts, not quantity: you're not getting Post Count, so no need to spam.

However, if your posts actually consist of something RELEVANT to your nation and not just one-liner comments, I'll be more forgiving. Don't exploit this however; you wouldn't like to see an angry GM.

13b. Do not quote the entire post. Only quote the relevant parts. It keeps the forum more readable.

13c. Don't respond to each relevant post individually; use multi-quote to avoid posting like 10 times in a row.

13d. If you break these rules, you'll get two warnings from me. On your third infraction, I phone the actual mods."

Those are two.

Ugh, if you wish then, but please, call it something else. There's already been an IOT II, making another one will just be confusing.

Nitpick: Technically, there were the prototypes in Altered Maps and Off Topic Empires, and then Imperium Offtopicum I, the completed version. Then IOT III and IOT IV.

Well, it's a pretty good name, hence why we like to use it.

I can't help it if I have awesome nomenclature.

Though if your so persistent in creating another IOT II, then I guess we'll rename. Another thing the community can decide

There we go! Crisis averted. And just as I was about to let loose a horde of hormonal furries on Japan.

...oh wait. Japan'd like that. DANGIT!

But for now, I will continue calling it IOT V just because it is the 5th version in the series.

Nothing wrong with a working title. It's better than saying "that game we're working on at the moment."

Yes, but history tells us player created rules tend not to work. I for one, thought Thorvald's version would be the end all IOT, but look what ended up happening to it.

There are plenty of hiccups, but errors are good: the more errors you make, the more you can learn from them so as to not repeat them in the future.

 

[Tee Kay]

I think we've made enough errors to justify this thread.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Alright, good that the crisis was averted.

Now Tanicus, since we're pretty sure you're going to create your own, do you want us to add your ideas for rules to the OP (to be added in the community version), or would you rather us not?

 

[Reiser]

I take this far too seriously.

Then there's rule 13, which covers anti-spam(how appropriate it's the unlucky number!): "Anti-Spam Measures:

13a. You are limited to five posts per 24 hours, and the post limit is not cumulative. Discuss details in private, or on your userpages. Then post the FINAL results on the page. IOT gets brought down by too much unnecessary content. GM updates, battle orders, and claims do not count towards this limit; everything else does.

13b. Do not quote the entire post. Only quote the relevant parts. It keeps the forum more readable.

13c. Don't respond to each relevant post individually; use multi-quote to avoid posting like 10 times in a row.

13d. If you break these rules, you'll get two warnings from me. On your third infraction, I phone the actual mods.

I think you are, man! You have 16 of those? How long did it take you to make that, including the sub-rules?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Now Tanicus, since we're pretty sure you're going to create your own, do you want us to add your ideas for rules to the OP (to be added in the community version), or would you rather us not?

Your choice; I figured since spam was the main concern, I'd recommend that rule to you all to be nice. I'll let you all decide everything, however, for your game.

...

For you see, I have the duty to prove dictatorship is superior to democracy. A bit of friendly competition, if you will.

That said, if you all ever need assistance GMing it all, you all can always ask me to do some things for you to make life easier. I don't start school until January, so I have plenty of free time to hang with y'allz.

I think you are, man! You have 16 of those? How long did it take you to make that, including the sub-rules?

Being high on meth rings, it was easy for time to fly while waiting for Thor to hand over the keys. And at the same time, drawing up rule after rule after rule.

...it's 17 rules now, by the way. It just keeps growing as I think of new ideas.