CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
So did I. Spent four hours on the ruleset, realized I wasn't a quarter finished, and shelved it.
I'm still going to try it.
So did I. Spent four hours on the ruleset, realized I wasn't a quarter finished, and shelved it.
I did too, but I didn't do anything with it.![]()
I'm trying to do something of that sort.
Oh, well TK, are you all right with it?
I would just suggest you ban nations that are extra dumb like "Mathalamus Empire" since seeing them every game is far more annoying than seeing France every game.
I'm not you. I think they're equally agitating.
However, I don't feel inclined to invade Math every game just because he creates the same nation a lot.
I would ban Domination3000 and Mathalamus from all future games until they sort out their differences.
Dommy has some good ideas. His execution of them needs works, but he knows (In the sense of what goals he wants to achieve) what he's doing. I can't say that for Math.
So: war. The 'strategic map' option seems popular, so it'll definitely be a keeper. At the start of the conflict, I'll provide two maps: one detailing all the territories impugned, and the actual battlefield. Players' victories and defeats in different regions translate into change of lands. I'm still trying to figure out how to determine the end of the match beyond total victory, since given the scale of the playing field, annihilating every enemy soldier is too tedious.
Here are some ideas, in descending order of complexity:
A. - The "Schlieffen Plan" approach. The players each provide a single plan with all the nuanced details and I butt them against each other. Continue until either a) all orders are fulfilled or b) there aren't enough troops left to carry them out. Can reduce the war to a single update.
B. - A tug-of-war style in which the battlefield is divvied up into different regions. The war is conducted in rounds, with players battling over specific regions each round; the front line fluctuates based on who wins what region that round. The war ends after a set number of turns (rough estimate of 3-5), or if one player wins all objectives. Players can adjust their strategy as the situation evolves.
C. - The limited forces option. Similar to B., except the troops committed at the outset must last for the entire war. Casualties are not replenished each round, making effective tactics that much more critical.
All wars last either until victory, time limit, or when all parties agree to a cessation of hostilities. Belligerents revert to a state of peace. Any further aggressive action without casus belli incurs a reputation hit.
Then we have the RNG. I'm debating whether to continue to IOT4's three-per-turn allowance, or up that number to allow for either more attacks, or stronger individual assaults.
My basic formula is a roll range of 1-10 with a starting multiplier of 1. Combining action points (if we use them) adds 10% efficiency each (so 1.3 with the standing three, 1.5 with five). Additional modifiers are then applied based on roleplay criteria.
Examples: [lots of examples]
Speaking of reputation, here are some ways in which it can change:
It's been ten years since IOT4, so how much do we want to change? I can possibly adjust the landmass in reaction to global warming/cooling, although I aim to keep the same number of territories. I'm also looking into expanding the already discouraging levels of radiation; how far do people feel I should add to the hurt?