IOT Developmental Thread

[GhostWriter16]

Is this the sequal to IOT Rev or something different entirely?

 

[Sonereal]

Is this the sequal to IOT Rev or something different entirely?

If IOT Rev starts waning before then, direct sequel. If not, alternate universe set in the 80s (I believe).

 

[Sonereal]

Rough draft of the War Aims system I'm going to use (adapated from SoM)

War Aims are CBs that reflect what you're aiming for. When going for peace, you can demand more or less than what your war aim was but there will be penalties in either direction. Less and your people will be angry for five years resulting in a -3% domestic income for each year they're angry. However, claiming more opens a CB on you (Belligerence). Getting this "just right" means +2% domestic income for five years.

When you go to war, you can set your war aims and as many as you want. If the war continues for three years, you're allowed to add MORE to your aims but not take back any previous aims. Nations on the defense can't have any war aims except to demand Reparations at the outbreak of the war. However, if the war lasts three years, the defender can add war aims.

The following are some of the war aims.

-Embargo or Blockade: This war aim demands you break their blockade and/or embargo on you..

-Belligerence; if the enemy waged a war without a casus belli, you get one against them. This one is a freebie. Feel free to do as much or as little damage as you want and get off scott-free for a white peace. You can't keep territory. But you can demand reparations and arms reduction and many other things.

-Balance of Power: When a single nation is 100% more powerful than any nation on the planet, you can declare war on them. To achieve this aim, you must settle on a peace treaty that brings them on par with the next leading nation.

-Overlapping Claims; if you both claimed the same province and can't work out a peaceful resolution, you can try and take it by force of arms. War aim is simple.

-War of Liberation; you can attack your opponent if they've recently vassalised or annexed a state by force. Achieve this aim simply be getting the vassal/annexed states released. You can also use this to liberate colonies, creating an independent nation.

-Guarantee of Independence; if your enemy attacks someone who you've guaranteed, or who is your ally or vassal, you have permission to strike them down to protect your honor. To achieve this aim, demand reparations for your ally or vassal or gurantee-ee.

-Colonial War: Declare war on someone to take one of their colonies.

-Loan Collection: If a nation defaults on their loan, the nations who had loaned money to that nation gain a CB on them. To achieve this aim, declare war on them and demand the money owned.

-Cancel Trade Agreement: If a nation doesn't want to cancel the trade agreement with your nation, you can declare war on them and force them to cancel it.

-Dishonored Alliance: If an alliance is dishonored, the signatories of the alliance have the right to declare war on the one who dishonored the alliance. Achieve this aim by demanding reparations.

-Annexation: Only avaible against nations tech five levels under yours. You can go in and simply annex them.

-Puppet: Only available against nations with tech three levels under yours. You can go in and carve out a puppet state.

Any more ideas?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I like this idea, but due to huge changes from IOT Rev, I'd recommend it being its own game, regardless of the status of Rev I.

We need something for major ideology differences (Communism VS Fascism, Fundamentalist VS Secular, exc.) but I dunno what the "Aim" of such a war would be. I guess forcing them to moderate their policies to more closely conform with yours.

 

[Sonereal]

No reason. You can just use a "different" reason and carve a puppet state out of the attacked state which is the only way to take "core" territory from someone else. Core territory being territory they control on the continent. Overseas territory count as colonies.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Can we define "Continent." Do you mean on the same continent, or connected, or what? If you mean same continent, does the Byzantine player's territories in Greece count as colonies? Or the Ottoman Empire stretching from Greece to Egypt, is Egypt and Greece colonies?

If you mean, "Touching", if England controls North France, is this a colony? If one player controls both parts of Malaysia, is it a colony?

I know this sounds like nitpicking, but I'm just curious.

One way to solve this problem would be anything connected to your capital OR on your continent is considered "Core." That way, the Ottomans from Greece to Egypt would be all "Core" since they're all connected, and a British base in France would be "Core" since they are on the same continent, but a British holding in Egypt would be considered a colony.

Also, what do you mean by "You can't take." Did you actually mean "You can't keep?" Because, if I'm France, fighting England over Florida, I see no reason I can't try to take London simply to make them negotiate, and then have them give it back once they give me Florida, in order to get them to give me what I want.

 

[Sonereal]

Can we define "Continent." Do you mean on the same continent, or connected, or what? If you mean same continent, does the Byzantine player's territories in Greece count as colonies? Or the Ottoman Empire stretching from Greece to Egypt, is Egypt and Greece colonies?

I didn't mean colony. My bad, I meant not connected to previous territory. So, Great Britain would have an interesting colonial game going on. Players don't have to find colonies but each province that's not connected to the capital (which is marked) incurs a -$1 which would take two factories to cover. Colonies have exclusive trade rights with the mother country which doesn't count to the limit that would be imposed by tech levels, making them a good source of revenue.

If you mean, "Touching", if England controls North France, is this a colony? If one player controls both parts of Malaysia, is it a colony?

Answered above.

One way to solve this problem would be anything connected to your capital OR on your continent is considered "Core." That way, the Ottomans from Greece to Egypt would be all "Core" since they're all connected, and a British base in France would be "Core" since they are on the same continent, but a British holding in Egypt would be considered a colony.

Bah. I dislike that because it limits what kind of nations a player can make and claim as a core. The idea is that any adjacent territory it controls would be considered core.

Also, what do you mean by "You can't take." Did you actually mean "You can't keep?" Because, if I'm France, fighting England over Florida, I see no reason I can't try to take London simply to make them negotiate, and then have them give it back once they give me Florida, in order to get them to give me what I want.

I meant can't keep. None of the peace terms or aims allows for the taking of core territory meaning....yeah. Puppet states abound.

Also, the battle results are going to look a LOT like IOT Rev's. Something like

Final Results:

Holy Land casualties: 213,595 (5) $8,475,876 ($8)
Egypt casualties: 105,285 (3) $11,211,446 ($11)
Total casualties: Yadayada (8) $------- ($19)

It covers armies lost and economic damage. Factories destroyed and trade centers would be under a separate tab.

 

[Double A]

Any more ideas?

Breaking a written agreement: When two nations write-up an agreement which is witnessed by at least one other (via PM or more likely in thread), you may declare war on them if they do not honor or break it. ex: Saying "I won't overlap my claim with yours if you will let me claim this place next turn," they agree, and then the next turn they claim the designated territory too.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Bah. I dislike that because it limits what kind of nations a player can make and claim as a core. The idea is that any adjacent territory it controls would be considered core.

Actually, my idea actually allowed for MORE territories to be considered core than your idea.

My problem with the way you have it now is, quite literally, Ireland would be a British colony. I don't see this as right somehow...

@Double A- I suggest it has to be declared either in VM or public to be considered "Official." PM evidence could easily be faked. [For instance, let's say I wanted you to die and so did Sonereal (Lets say he was playing), I could say you made a deal with Sonereal in PM in order to fake a casus beli when no such deal was made.]

 

[Sonereal]

Actually, my idea actually allowed for MORE territories to be considered core than your idea.

I know, which is what puts me off about your idea.

My problem with the way you have it now is, quite literally, Ireland would be a British colony. I don't see this as right somehow...

The Irish probably do.

Ireland costs for maintaining would increase because the British would need a navy to keep a check on them. The costs can be offset through building factories but its cheaper to just turn Ireland into a colony or several colonies and let them trade with you. Given how close they are, the distance costs would be small and by the time they're industrialized, they would be pretty much core territories for all they money they're bringing you.

@Double A- I suggest it has to be declared either in VM or public to be considered "Official." PM evidence could easily be faked. [For instance, let's say I wanted you to die and so did Sonereal (Lets say he was playing), I could say you made a deal with Sonereal in PM in order to fake a casus beli when no such deal was made.]

The deals would be made official in the update. Like peace treaties and trade deals.

 

[Double A]

Blah, I meant VM.

I don't think Ireland should count as a colony Britain needs to patrol with a navy. That's just goofy. Irish didn't have a navy. Their rebellions were all land-based!

 

[GhostWriter16]

I agree with Double A.

Also, the point about money is irrevant compared to the point about Ireland. In your situation, Brazil could say to England: "We want Ireland from you, its just a colony, so we're as justified to have it as you are."

On the other hand, Russia could create an empire stretching from Moscow to Vietnam, and Japan couldn't demand Vietnam.

I find this situation odd personally.

 

[Sonereal]

Blah, I meant VM.

I don't think Ireland should count as a colony Britain needs to patrol with a navy. That's just goofy.

It really does drive home the fact that whoever plays Great Britain will either have to play as the isolationist sick man of Europe or become a booming colonial power where Ireland is the most important colony/dominion there is. Also, because of the distance costs, the farther away the colony, the larger it will have to be to make up costs. Either that or it'll have to start producing/mining goods to make up administrative costs (factories/mines, whatever).

I agree with Double A.

Also, the point about money is irrevant compared to the point about Ireland. In your situation, Brazil could say to England: "We want Ireland from you, its just a colony, so we're as justified to have it as you are."

They certainly could which is why whoever plays Britain will have to be a good player BUT early on in the game, it should be a non-starter since Brazil and England should have tech parity at the time Ireland starts being claimed. Great Britain will need to form alliances and learn to play like the British Empire.

On the other hand, Russia could create an empire stretching from Moscow to Vietnam, and Japan couldn't demand Vietnam.

I find this situation odd personally.

Not really. If the territory connects, it connects and looking at map, a Russian player starting at Moscow would have to do a LOT of work to reach Vietnam anyway.

 

[Double A]

On the other hand, Russia could create an empire stretching from Moscow to Vietnam, and Japan couldn't demand Vietnam.

I find this situation odd personally.

I think it should be in real life miles by sea or land (whichever is faster in real life - like it'd be slower to go through the Arctic Ocean than through Siberia... I think?)

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Sonereal- IRL Ireland is a part of the UK, and has been for some time. Why, therefore, is this impossible in the game?

I for one find this to be odd.

 

[Double A]

Yeah. It would be like if the Outer Banks of NC were considered a US colony.

 

[Sonereal]

I think it should be in real life miles by sea or land (whichever is faster in real life - like it'd be slower to go through the Arctic Ocean than through Siberia... I think?)

Sea territories and incredibly large land territories will have a "travel" distance associated with them or else Russia would be richest nation in the game because they can trade with anyone at a relatively short distance.

@Sonereal- IRL Ireland is a part of the UK, and has been for some time. Why, therefore, is this impossible in the game?

I for one find this to be odd.

It isn't impossible. It's fully possible not to turn Ireland into a colony but each territory would have an Admin costs of $1 and won't be covered until factories start being built.

Yeah. It would be like if the Outer Banks of NC were considered a US colony.

The Outer Banks would cost more than they bring in if they had be be administrated and there were no economic feasibility to them.

 

[Double A]

That wasn't my point. It's calling something incredibly close to home a colony just because they're islands.

 

[Sonereal]

That wasn't my point. It's calling something incredibly close to home a colony just because they're islands.

It's up to the player to call them colonies. They're core territories until they're called colonies but these core territories will actually cost the player money to hold onto until factories are built on them.

 

[Double A]

Zuh?

I'm just trying to say that maybe anything within a sea zone (unless they're super freaking huge) of your capital should be considered a core province.