IOT Developmental Thread

[arya126]

I think you are confusing The Art of War with The Prince. Europe did dominate the world after all. In any case, war is a lot of fun, and is a main feature in both games. Please speak for yourself, not IOTs in general, when saying war is a base stock and therefore uninteresting to play. Conflict and war are not the same thing. War is the funnest type of conflict as long as there are solid mechanics to support it.

 

[JohannaK]

I will tell you something. I play these games for the war.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I think you are confusing The Art of War with The Prince.

No I definitely mean the Art of War.

Conflict and war are not the same thing.

Which I already established. This is why I'm substituting other forms of conflict for war.

War is objectively not as challenging as soft power. It's easy to determine a victor when it's one army against another. Not so with soft power; whereas you can destroy an opponent easily with a war, you cannot generally do so with pure economics. No matter how strong you get, you will always be on the edge of your seat as your enemies are generally not truly defeated.

Snowballing will thus be avoided, creating a more stable, engaging game, as alliances need to made and broken to try and maintain the top position.

Which was the fun of MP1; no one stayed preeminent power for more than a handful of turns.

I have determined war to not be for me, as it adds loads to my turn times with little reward in my view. I am echoing the "IOT is not a war game" sentiment for this one. Should some players not wish to play because they can't declare war for whatever reason, that's unfortunate, but I have decided I want to try other angles.

 

[KaiserElectric]

My only real concern is how distinct our nations will be. I'm all for a strong world government and political backstabbing and whatnot, but not at the expense of forcing our creations to blend in. I like to put some effort into my history and whatnot, so it's upsetting to see my pride and joy shoved into the melting pot.

Also, while I agree war won't be necessary, half the fun of creating a nation is picking out and designing military units.

 

[Tyo]

So long as the soft power elements are engaging I see no problems. For example, the espionage for mpiv was pretty engaging, but its economics wasn't really much so.

 

[Lighthearter]

I heartily support Tani's attempt here. It's always good to experiment and change the established formula to see what comes of it.

Note I will likely not be joining due to personal reasons(My life is about to take a HUGE time hit) but I do fully and wholeheartedly approve of Tani's decision, even if I wouldn't ever do the same thing. Give it a chance before you instantly rage. And if you can't even do that, don't even join. Simple courtesy.

-L

 

[Tani Coyote]

History/culture/etc. will all be allowed to be unique. The UN has imposed some uniform economic measures - there's an official language, everyone uses the same currency, etc. but each state is still allowed to have its own policies provided they don't invalidate federal measures.

So, yes, you can have one state be a theocracy, another a syndicalist republic, another a confederate democracy, etc. The only guiding rule is that the federal government has legal supremacy and a monopoly on force.

Unique national histories and cultures are perfectly fine, since that's a separate beast entirely from actual politics.

 

[KaiserElectric]

Then my last real question is what role our armies and navies play. Are they banned altogether, merged with the UN forces, or are we allowed limited control over them?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Local and paramilitary forces are perfectly valid. Think National Guard units and police forces versus the United States Army.

The UN makes up for this by reserving the most superior hardware for its own forces, naturally.

Up to and including orbital weaponry in case anyone got any ideas. There will be no Confederate States of Earth here, maties!

 

[Mathalamus]

History/culture/etc. will all be allowed to be unique. The UN has imposed some uniform economic measures - there's an official language, everyone uses the same currency, etc. but each state is still allowed to have its own policies provided they don't invalidate federal measures.

unless i'm incorrect, that strongly implies that monarchies are not supported.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Did I forget to mention the Consul probably has a title a la Sovereign of Earth in his list of office ranks?

Monarchs are perfectly fine... they are just to the Consul as Dukes are to a King.

 

[Mathalamus]

Did I forget to mention the Consul probably has a title a la Sovereign of Earth in his list of office ranks?

Monarchs are perfectly fine... they are just to the Consul as Dukes are to a King.

well then.. Emperor Andreas I Laskaris will return!

 

[Mosher]

So long as the soft power elements are engaging I see no problems. For example, the espionage for mpiv was pretty engaging, but its economics wasn't really much so.

I wasn't even sure how economy worked in mp4

 

[Tani Coyote]

I have a plan for the economy in MPV, I assure you! I desired to make it more complex as in MP3, but without the horrible micromanaging headache.

 

[arya126]

I wasn't even sure how economy worked in mp4

They didn't work.

 

[Tani Coyote]

They didn't work.

Primarily because I don't like making my economic systems as intricate as Sonereal's and so, as a compromise, I set up a few guiding principles:

-Increases in taxation had an adverse effect on growth and vice versa
-High debt caused crowding out and hurt growth
-Large militaries sucked up resources that could be used more efficiently by the private sector and thus hurt growth
-Often people and institutions lacked the money necessary for independent development of hospitals, roads, schools, etc. so regular investment in these was a good idea
-Ideas spread after a few years, so every year the various technological fields received a stimulus from abroad

There are exceptions to all of these rules in reality (persistent low taxation can lead to inflation, for example, and crowding out can be mitigated if the debt is used to fund infrastructure that generates enough economic activity to offset the decreased money supply), but I felt a few guiding rules was better than putting in all variables. I want to run a game, not get a migraine.

Furthermore, since not everyone sees eye to eye on economic policy, a simplistic system is best. An overly complex system would lead to me being accused of bias by players whose personal ideologies don't line up with the game's rules.

 

[JohannaK]

I dont like it when economic systems which should more closely simulate real economics fail to accurately do so. grumble rumble.

 

[arya126]

Wars, even successful ones, also destroyed your economy. While total war and full mobilization does this after a few years, that wasn't what you were simulating. But we have been over this.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I dont like it when economic systems which should more closely simulate real economics fail to accurately do so. grumble rumble.

Not everyone agrees on economic policy. That's the main reason I fear putting too much detail into it.

If I use an Austrian model, Keynesians will freak. If I use a Keynesian model, Austrians will freak. At some point I had to make a compromise.

My basis for this being the tendency by various players to use their nation as a vehicle for their RL ideology.

Wars, even successful ones, also destroyed your economy. While total war and full mobilization does this after a few years, that wasn't what you were simulating. But we have been over this.

Indeed we have, and I remain committed to putting windowmakers out of business.

 

[SamSniped]

lurker's comment: I've found that wars are generally for economic reasons, and can be used very effectively as a form of economic gain. Just pointing this out.