The link is on the Forum Games frontpage you troll.
IOT Developmental Thread
- Thread starter Joecoolyo
- Start date
The link is on the Forum Games frontpage you troll.
Abaddon
Deity
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
My signature The republic of Singapore
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
Well the simple ones get boring quickly, so it sucks
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
simple games are not boring, no matter what you think. IOTII got inactive simply because the GM was inactive, not cause it was boring. if simple games are boring, how come there are thousands of simple games still around? tetris anyone?
DroopyTofu
Double Bass Double Bass
I think IOT III was the best. It seemed to be fairly unflawed. I don't have time to GM a game, but would anyone be interested in having one similar to IOT III. It seemed to be the last simple one.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
fairly unflawed? as i recall, Carthage claimed half of north Africa in a single turn. is that something you want?
i would be interested... and i promise i wont play as Byzantium.
DroopyTofu
Double Bass Double Bass
IIRC, it was IOT II where Carthage had so much land. IOT III was the one led by Thorvald and where you could only claim 5 provinces a turn. I think the main flaw was that we could't find a good combat system. We used a game called Operation Flashpoint (I think), but it became too time consuming for Thor after world war broke out, so we went to a RNG or dice or something.
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
I was so upset. That war could've amounted to something.
But I think it highlights one of the key challenges of earlier IOTs, in that the game seems to fall apart whenever large-scale combat erupts. RNG, with or without modifiers, is crap; to me, physical armies are a pain to keep track of; and while OFP was the first real opportunity for hands-on command, and the first (in my biased opinion) nonrandom approach, it turned out to be too time-consuming to be feasible.
It seems to me that the new features of the post-IOT4 (IOT3 to Droopy) games -technology, income, et cetera- all revolved around trying to correct a faulty battle system. Creative and diverse as different approaches were, to this casual observer they were all trying to make RNG "work", but required complex calculations of dozens of factors (which in turn required significantly more attention to the game than simply keeping track of foreign relations). When I first stumbled upon IOT, it was a thread for open-ended geopolitical roleplay; now it's some sort of proto-NES. There has to be, has to be a viable combat algorithm that exists that doesn't require half an hour of reviewing a nation's stats. If we can figure that out, I think we can take another shot at the Good Ol' Days.
But I think it highlights one of the key challenges of earlier IOTs, in that the game seems to fall apart whenever large-scale combat erupts. RNG, with or without modifiers, is crap; to me, physical armies are a pain to keep track of; and while OFP was the first real opportunity for hands-on command, and the first (in my biased opinion) nonrandom approach, it turned out to be too time-consuming to be feasible.
It seems to me that the new features of the post-IOT4 (IOT3 to Droopy) games -technology, income, et cetera- all revolved around trying to correct a faulty battle system. Creative and diverse as different approaches were, to this casual observer they were all trying to make RNG "work", but required complex calculations of dozens of factors (which in turn required significantly more attention to the game than simply keeping track of foreign relations). When I first stumbled upon IOT, it was a thread for open-ended geopolitical roleplay; now it's some sort of proto-NES. There has to be, has to be a viable combat algorithm that exists that doesn't require half an hour of reviewing a nation's stats. If we can figure that out, I think we can take another shot at the Good Ol' Days.
Abaddon
Deity
*cough* proto-NES *cough*
I really wish you luck in finding a decent and EASY to implement battle system. I'd argue NES has yet to answer that question.
I really wish you luck in finding a decent and EASY to implement battle system. I'd argue NES has yet to answer that question.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
mine is simple:
1 to 1 ratio (well diplo style. So more 2 defeats 1. Encirclement destroys armies when they loose, non encirclement just gives them the opportunity to retreat.). When war breaks out, why leave it down to luck? Let the big guns be able to have bigger armies and use that to threaten the smaller nations. We are looking at playing a geopolitical game after all, and that would make it more realistic.
However I acknowledge that the problem with mine is, no luck. The person with the better strategy (if it is a huge difference in skill) or better army (if it is not a huge difference) will always win. While in history, inferior armies have sometimes been victorious.
So it does come down to personal preference:
War is decided by pure strategy like my IOT
Pure luck in the older IOT's
Or an over-complex mix like in the newer IOTs
When creating my IOT I debated between one of two ways to determine battle outcomes:
Low Luck AAA style battles (for those who have played to board game)
or Diplomacy style
In the end I choose diplomacy. But Nemid has done a good job at introducing unit mixes.
I have thought of a new combat system though, which is combining the above two. But then I decided no because it's just 2 complex.
So yeah, that is more or less my suggestion. Rather then contemplate new battle systems just do one that has proven to have worked in the past: Either AAA, Diplomacy, Risk or Imperial all have combat systems that worked well enough to sell 10 million+ units world wide which means they are simple enough to appeal to folks looking to play a board game(AAA is an exception to this) and they have enough strategy in them to make it not ******** or to much reliant on luck.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
or just... use tanicius style... that worked and there was at least three world wars. granted it was RNG, but dice and Red alert (i think) got out of favor.
if RNG sucked, the people didn't think so.
if RNG sucked, the people didn't think so.
RNG sucked. It only seem to work because most of those wars consist of one rogue nation vs the entire world (Oranje is a case in point). The outcome was never really in doubt.
The major weakness of RNG that drives me away from any game that uses it exclusively is that one it fails to take into account the relative strength of the countries and two the player does not have any control over combat. We've been through all this.
I'm thinking of starting a Something-Close-To-Simple IOT after Ab Antiquo finishes. It won't be "simple" because of the combat system, but it'd be a lot simpler than Ab Antiquo.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I have an idea that just came to me:
Have six or seven different types of tactical approaches to a battle (I'll come back with more details), and have them each have different advantages against other types. Some would be more balanced, while others would be really risky. Kinda like an advanced rock paper scissors.
So, there would be three, each of which beats one and loses to one, and then each one would have a riskier version that can be chosen that assures victory if you get it right but assures defeat if you fail.
So, here's what I'm thinking. I don't have names yet, but I'm focusing on the strategic element.
Tactical Format A (I'll call it Rock for Now)- Gain +1 to the die roll against Scissors, +3 VS Advanced Scissors, -1 VS Paper, and -3 VS Advanced Paper
Paper (again, I am not suggesting you use this name) Gain +1 to the die roll against Rock, +3 VS Advanced Rock, -1 VS Scissors, -3 VS Advanced Scissors.
Scissors (See above, and I am going to stop posting this notice next time) Gain +1 to the die roll against Paper, +3 VS Advanced Paper, -1 VS Rock, -3 VS Advanced Rock.
Advanced Rock- Gain +3 to the die roll VS Scissors, automatic Victory VS Advanced Scissors, -3 VS Paper, automatic defeat VS Advanced Paper
Advanced Paper - Gain +3 to the die roll VS Rock, automatic Victory VS Advanced Rock, -3 VS Scissors, automatic defeat VS Advanced Scissors
Advanced Scissors- Gain +3 to the die roll VS Paper, automatic Victory VS Advanced Paper, -3 VS Rock, automatic defeat VS Advanced Rock
Balanced- No Gains or Negatives
Then, if no auto victory or defeat happens, 2 dice are thrown for each side, modifiers plugged in, high numbers win! (Defense wins ties.)
And, if either player picks balanced, or they both pick the same tactic (Or one picks advanced and the other normal of the same type) then there's a straight out die roll.
This would allow some strategy, yet be simple enough. Thoughts?
Have six or seven different types of tactical approaches to a battle (I'll come back with more details), and have them each have different advantages against other types. Some would be more balanced, while others would be really risky. Kinda like an advanced rock paper scissors.
So, there would be three, each of which beats one and loses to one, and then each one would have a riskier version that can be chosen that assures victory if you get it right but assures defeat if you fail.
So, here's what I'm thinking. I don't have names yet, but I'm focusing on the strategic element.
Tactical Format A (I'll call it Rock for Now)- Gain +1 to the die roll against Scissors, +3 VS Advanced Scissors, -1 VS Paper, and -3 VS Advanced Paper
Paper (again, I am not suggesting you use this name) Gain +1 to the die roll against Rock, +3 VS Advanced Rock, -1 VS Scissors, -3 VS Advanced Scissors.
Scissors (See above, and I am going to stop posting this notice next time) Gain +1 to the die roll against Paper, +3 VS Advanced Paper, -1 VS Rock, -3 VS Advanced Rock.
Advanced Rock- Gain +3 to the die roll VS Scissors, automatic Victory VS Advanced Scissors, -3 VS Paper, automatic defeat VS Advanced Paper
Advanced Paper - Gain +3 to the die roll VS Rock, automatic Victory VS Advanced Rock, -3 VS Scissors, automatic defeat VS Advanced Scissors
Advanced Scissors- Gain +3 to the die roll VS Paper, automatic Victory VS Advanced Paper, -3 VS Rock, automatic defeat VS Advanced Rock
Balanced- No Gains or Negatives
Then, if no auto victory or defeat happens, 2 dice are thrown for each side, modifiers plugged in, high numbers win! (Defense wins ties.)
And, if either player picks balanced, or they both pick the same tactic (Or one picks advanced and the other normal of the same type) then there's a straight out die roll.
This would allow some strategy, yet be simple enough. Thoughts?
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
i dont want control over combat. it takes too long for me to make a descison. and.. relative strength? what, you don't believe Byzantium could beat a seriously strained Russia (with Constantinople destroyed i might add)? or that the orangjes would instantly fall apart with no victories? that's unrealistic. an army is competent enough to execute its orders, regardless if the chain of command is there.
basically: a USA battle group receives orders to air-bomb Iran. Iran somehow wipes out Washington DC. would the battlegroup stop and turn back home, or would they continue their orders? my belif is that they are smart enough to not turn back (thus giving iran another chance to strike) but to disable iran's capability of an effective military capability.
