IOT Developmental Thread

Ultimately balance is more important than realism. I have to arbitrarily slash the spoils of war to prevent snowballing.

Though ultimately I decided getting rid of war entirely is more fun.

A general disdain for historicity and realism is already a theme in my games, why not make peaceful play a theme too? Just like the good ole days...
 
MPV Dev Diary – The Diplomatic Game (Political Parties)

It was said during MPIV that any UN was doomed to fail. A weak UN would be kept weak, and a strong UN would be taken down in power. Seeing the ICJ being stripped of its ability to overturn local laws in MPIV, I felt this view was vindicated. I had already eliminated the independent nation-states idea, but now I had to enforce it. Rather than using the Hand of God to keep the system in place, I came up with an IC way to justify it… as well as provide an interesting means of play.
Hence, I made the Union bicameral. The second chamber valued population-based representation in line with the desire by the Federation’s Framers to emulate America’s combination of state sovereignty with popular will. But rather than give countries delegates that would mindlessly vote with their country, I instead made the branch representative, where they could operate independently of national governments’ wishes. The party system was born.

First, those in charge of countries were to be barred from forming parties; parties would instead originate as the political arm of NGOs – corporations, churches, terrorist cells, the works. Parties would wield a particular amount of clout in every small country, allowing them to gain client revenue in this manner that could be spent on further politics. In theory, these internationally-sanctioned political parties would be able to seize control of small countries in elections even, providing an on-the-ground challenge to player nations.

Each nation would be assigned a number of Tribunes, and party-list elections would determine how many of these votes (fractional representatives valid) would be given to each party, under the control of a particular NGO player. An exciting side effect was NGOs now became infinitely more interesting to play; simply forming a party would give one clout in the UN far greater per capita than what player states enjoyed, allowing one to enjoy a degree of importance never before afforded to NGO players. And naturally, no sane party would ever truly wish to weaken the Union, as it would effectively end their power (suicidal "disband the UN then rejoin as a nation" parties will be looked out for, so don't try those either).

The Union was thus, both preserved, and also divided in such a manner that power politics could be given yet more diversity and intrigue.
 
They both have power.

NGOs make up for their lack of a stable support base by inherently having an advantage in the form of political parties, though.

Whereas the Senate will bounce between the opinions of say, 15 players, I'm presuming the Tribunate will bounce between maybe 3 players. Being in the Tribunate as a party will be inherently more valuable than being in the Senate as a nation as far as UN doles are concerned.
 
They both have power.

NGOs make up for their lack of a stable support base by inherently having an advantage in the form of political parties, though.

Whereas the Senate will bounce between the opinions of say, 15 players, I'm presuming the Tribunate will bounce between maybe 3 players. Being in the Tribunate as a party will be inherently more valuable than being in the Senate as a nation as far as UN doles are concerned.

so... how much influence would Cyprus get? effectively none, for all purposes and intent, making the FUN useless for a small nation?
 
You need not play as Cyprus if you do not desire such is the thing.
 
You need not play as Cyprus if you do not desire such is the thing.

oh no, i like being out of the way. unimportant. less pressure than being a great power like the Roman Empire. plus, there is a lot of RP potential, as Cyprus.
 
I look forward to the game and if someone tries to bring war into the game (by trying to cause a massive war in revolt) then my nation (likely to be Norse) or NGO will be set to provide the UN military and police enforcement in return.

Whether I go nation or NGO I will focus on helping ensure law and order in MP5! :D
 
I assume there will be some pre-made, NPC parties that nations can influence slightly? Really generic things, Capitalists, Communists ect.

I reserve a Spartacus party right now Tani, don't get any ideas. ;)
 
Preferably parties will be controlled by players.
 
MPV Development Diary: The Economic System

In MPV, with most people on Earth now sharing a common language, using a common currency, not needing to go through customs or otherwise facing trade barriers, naturally economic activity has exploded in a way never before seen in human history. While variation is allowed in the various local economies of the world, the fear of the UN invoking Supremacy has kept most variations to a moderate variety; even states that lean towards more communist ideologies tend to have some form of private property to encourage an influx of foreign capital.

Naturally, with an economy that now is so free from the many barriers of the present day, I felt a need to diversify it, to make up for more things to do with the ever-peaceful world MPV presents. The goal was to increase complexity without making it too complicated for players to understand, nor micromanagement heavy.

To start with, I had to make economics automatic and not requiring much GM input so as to keep turn times low. It was not hard to do so at all; the global economy now adjusts solely as a result of players’ actions rather than anything I do. And this is without me changing anything outside nation stats; the economy is thus dynamic and not heavy on GM time, unlike the resource system of MPIII.

States basically may allocate their production capacity (simplistically represented by total province count) between four fields: Organics (Agricultural, renewable goods), Raw materials, the secondary (manufacturing) sector, and the tertiary (service) sector. Now here’s where the fun starts: the market is assumed to be in equilibrium each turn, and so there’s a global price for each that changes with each turn. Supply may change, but the ultimate way to fluctuate the price (and thus increase your own profits) is by controlling demand.

Demand for organics goes up with more people, simple enough; organics also have the least value in the long run. Demand for raw materials increases with better infrastructure and a larger industrial sector. Demand for the industrial sector is tied to the demand for manufactured goods. Manufactured goods’ demand increases with the rise of one’s educated middle classes; investments in human capital are how one will increase demand for those goods. The world economy, as a result, starts off with its largest sectors being industry and agriculture, but player decisions over time will gradually shift it towards the service sector associated with developed nations.

The price system becomes important, for it automatically determines a player’s economic power. Being geared towards high-demand, low-supply goods proves immensely useful as a result. At the same time, however, other players are liable to rush towards these areas, leaving one with the gamble that is the prisoner’s dilemma. Thus, despite the competitive nature of the world, it becomes somewhat important to get an idea for what other players’ economic plans are, so as to gain the most profitable result.

Ultimately the system allows for varied economics and the rise and fall of nations’ economic clout on a regular basis, keeping everyone guessing as to where things will head. At the same time, besides obtaining raw money, directing the economy towards certain sectors can prove rewarding; for example, going agricultural can allow for explosive population growth, an economic weapon in and of itself.

Players will only be able to adjust their output parameters (the percentage of the economy geared towards a certain sector) by so much per turn, but it nonetheless will provide an interesting challenge to those seeking greater power in the world; it is no longer a case of “spam infrastructure to win.”

With regards to the actual hard numbers, players begin making a large chunk of their money from foreign trade; even if the Federation were to magically vanish, becoming a pariah remains a bad idea no matter how one slices it. The dissolution of independent nation-states has made it taboo to try any sort of exclusive trade arrangements or embargoes, but the intact client system allows one to distort the markets of target nations to receive advantages over other nations and thus an informal “preferred trade status” that yields additional trade revenue from that nation.

Tax policy’s ability to affect growth has returned, and debt no longer adversely affects growth; instead, excessive debt reduces the confidence of businesses in your economy, while also causing a loss of influence as the powerful bankers of the world mobilise to collect installments by other means. Local politicians around the world are all too eager to repossess your assets to pay your debts for you if it means a few hundred thousand donated to their campaigns or programs.
 
So, if I understand well, there will be elections about parties, right?

How would this work for one party states or absolute monarchies? All people would have to vote for the party that the ruler wants, right?
 
Also, can a state leave the Union?

Note: Leaving is not the same thing as going at war against FUN.
 
How would this work for one party states or absolute monarchies? All people would have to vote for the party that the ruler wants, right?

Democracy would only exist at the federal level in those cases. So, there'd be fair, free, open elections for UN offices, while state elections are the domain of the government there.

A state can support a party within their borders but ultimately it just helps tilt the scale.

Also, can a state leave the Union?

It can leave via atomisation by orbital cannon, yes.
 
It can leave via atomisation by orbital cannon, yes.

Could the survivors still govern independently?

Could the Consul decide not to blast people who leave the union for the sake of peace and avoiding tyranny?
 
Could the survivors still govern independently?

Within Union orphanages I'm positive the alphabet song goes along the lines of, "N is for no survivors."

Could the Consul decide not to blast people who leave the union for the sake of peace and avoiding tyranny?

Oh, but he wouldn't have blasted them. It would have just been a tragic, coincidental earthquake, and the UN would dispense as much aid as it could given that its first responsibility is to member states...

The Union is very Machiavellian behind all that talk of peace, democracy and liberty for all human beings. ;)
 
I think that by making the Earth a federal state, you take away much of the diplomatic options that made the MP's games so successful and interesting.

If we are all states, then what is the reason to create alliance? If there is a economical system enforced by the UN, then how can we be communists?

What made fun the diplomacy in the past games was how the different nations tried to make alliance to survive, like the Comnitern. Taking away war and making the UN a federal Union makes alliances have no use at all.

The only thing that you could do in the game would be to spend money on the economy or buying clients. Clients were used in past MP's as either buffer states or as allies in wars. Now, they have no use other than voting in the UN.
 
Back
Top Bottom