IOT Developmental Thread

[Thorvald of Lym]

Tani hurry up and release this game! I've got a Hitler Rant all lined up for the occasion!

 

[arya126]

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.

Christos brings up some great points. Honestly you have espionage, which only brings limited rewards and satisfaction since as you point out you can very rarely 'win', and diplomacy to gain a seat in the UN, which is made rather pointless except for potentially making your nation slightly better for a temporary period of time.

Also, how will you deal with terrorist and there violent NGO's? Given that the majority of NGOs do tend to be violent....

 

[Sonereal]

No one is forcing anybody to play the game, so that's also a thing.

Can we seriously get rid of insanely stupidly powerful NGOs though? NGOs in the MP series have a habit of becoming the British East India Company on steroids right out the gate, command unrealistic amounts of influence, and command impossibly large armies (such as GOONS).

I would go as far as to say that terrorist organizations be banned outright from having political power and that should be included right in the UN rules. An organization that goes around overthrowing governments, killing people, and having massive paramilitaries shouldn't be allowed to have say in the UN and I have no idea how, after what we've seen in MP3, the World Government wouldn't have made rules with those things in mind.

As for removing war, I don't much mind. The mechanic was normally broken anyway and if it means that more interesting mechanics are introduced (rationally), I'm all for it. Probably would join as a pure multinational in that case.

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.

When do local politicians repossess federal assets ever? A civil war was kicked off by an attempted repossession of federal assets.

Not to mention the fact the government is the one that would set local campaign laws in the country unless that too is mandated by the World Government and I missed it. [I apparently did, and campaign laws are still at the discretion of member states, huzzah].

Then again, there is a World Government. Given what we're seeing with the Greece and the EU, you would think the WG, being the one to control printing of currency, would be the one putting pressure on states not to go off the deep end.

Who defines excessive debt, what is the interest rates for loans, and how to reconcile the fact that one country's excessive debt, even going by percentage, is easily managed by another country?

Habsburgian Spain, bless it heart, ran up amazing levels of debt but the house of cards didn't come crashing down until Spain wasn't able to pay back the debt and even then, they just restructured the existing loans to lower interest loans, pledged future portions of the national income and quintos from the New World to repayment, and a slew of other things and despite all this happening, Spain could still find people to loan it money.

The Genoa bankers, when they didn't get their money and saw that they were about to lose a lot of money because the monarch wasn't even going to restructure the higher-interest loans did exert their will by doing things like shutting down the supply line and bullion transfer to the Spanish army in the Netherlands, but it wasn't local politicians suddenly going for broke.

It would almost be better to just formalize the financial system once and for all and make it so each note payable and the interest rate is tracked and, more importantly, where that money came from, is tracked.

"Jack, Jill, and Mary loaned me $200 each at 10% interest each due in six years (three turns) with compounded interest. Therefore, I need to figure out how I am going to pay off these loans in six years without defaulting on my obligation. If I am unable to pay, then I totally need to bring all three of them to the table, explain the situation, and work out a plan to restructure the debt so those three get enough of their money back to somewhat trust me and I can still get money."

This makes more sense than.

"Jack, Jill, and Mary loaned me $200 each at 10% interest each due in six years with compounded interest. Now, Jimmy is pissed off at me because he thinks I'll be unable to pay those loans, despite Jimmy not loaning me money. Meanwhile, Jack, Jill, and Mary, despite going into this arrangement, have opted to sabotaging the country when my debt obligation hit 100% of GDP because that makes sense."

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.

That's what made the diplomatic situations in other games awful. This incesstant belief that survival is always at stake in international politics is what drove things to the insane levels that existed in those games.

I won't miss that at all. I won't miss the alliances. I won't miss most of the things that made diplomacy in MP1, 2, and 3 revolve around war, war, and just war.

 

[JohannaK]

Should I ever command a NGO in a MP game, it will be the VOC.

 

[Sonereal]

Should I ever command a NGO in a MP game, it will be the VOC.

I was going to be the VOC.

 

[Mosher]

Should I ever command a NGO in a MP game, it will be the VOC.

You commanded one in MP1 after you were annexed.


And I do agree with Christos here, just saying. There isn't a ton at stake when stepping a teensy bit out of line results in your nation getting hit with a comet.

 

[NinjaCow64]

No one is forcing anybody to play the game, so that's also a thing.

Can we seriously get rid of insanely stupidly powerful NGOs though? NGOs in the MP series have a habit of becoming the British East India Company on steroids right out the gate, command unrealistic amounts of influence, and command impossibly large armies (such as GOONS).

I would go as far as to say that terrorist organizations be banned outright from having political power and that should be included right in the UN rules. An organization that goes around overthrowing governments, killing people, and having massive paramilitaries shouldn't be allowed to have say in the UN and I have no idea how, after what we've seen in MP3, the World Government wouldn't have made rules with those things in mind.

I doubt, with the banning of war, that Tani will allow NGOs to field any soldiers whatsoever. Honestly I think Espionage should be kept in, but maybe it should be nerfed for NGOs? Ah, I dunno I'm not GM.

 

[KaiserElectric]

I doubt, with the banning of war, that Tani will allow NGOs to field any soldiers whatsoever. Honestly I think Espionage should be kept in, but maybe it should be nerfed for NGOs? Ah, I dunno I'm not GM.

Nerfing espionage for NGO's when the only avenue of attacking an enemy is espionage is like taking away all of a character's weapons in TF2.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Nerfing espionage for NGO's when the only avenue of attacking an enemy is espionage is like taking away all of a character's weapons in TF2.

But you've got practical domination of the lower house now. But yeah, when you say it like that it sounds pretty stupid.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I notice the people arguing for war are the ones who exploit it the most. I remain unconvinced.

At Sone's points:

The financial system is going to be structured so I can keep track of loans and their origin. There's a few large banks that control global finance, and with their global clout (branches in every country) they can repossess state assets in other states. Your influence investment is not a federal investment; repossessing federal property would be suicidal. If you're showing no inclination towards repaying your debt, the bankers will break you.

With regards to terrorists getting parties of their own, that would be a case of terror groups having good PR. If one could somehow prove that they were guilty of violent behavior, however, disposing of their party would be a non-issue. The overall ideas is for NGOs to have a public and private face.

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.

They still provide money. And having votes in the Union allows one even more money.

Also, how will you deal with terrorist and there violent NGO's? Given that the majority of NGOs do tend to be violent....

Intelligence forces are still a thing.

Each state still performs espionage actions. In the context of the world, there's a gentleman's agreement among states not to run to the UN about it, because if they did, everyone would lose out.

I doubt, with the banning of war, that Tani will allow NGOs to field any soldiers whatsoever. Honestly I think Espionage should be kept in, but maybe it should be nerfed for NGOs? Ah, I dunno I'm not GM.

I will probably allow NGOs to field small armies but naturally they're going to have payroll. Plus they won't be able to magically redeploy anywhere on the globe.

 

[Sonereal]

Nerfing espionage for NGO's when the only avenue of attacking an enemy is espionage is like taking away all of a character's weapons in TF2.

Not every thing in IOT has to be about attacking someone.

We can't keep judging the pros and cons of actions and mechanics solely based on the ability to attack others. Part of the reason why NGOs tend to be so aggressive is because they were given incentives into being aggressive. The same reason why giving somebody a military bonus gives them an incentive to attack someone else.

The new NGO bonus in relation to diplomacy and legitimacy creates an incentive for peaceful, cooperative play among NGOs instead of the usual, "I Got Mines" attitude and generic mercenary companies.

going agricultural can allow for explosive population growth

US agricultural productivity is among the highest, if not highest, in the world. US growth rates not nearly.

As an economy becomes more industrialized, and further more service-reliant, population growth tends to slow, barely keeping at replacement levels if not falling in some cases. Probably because the cost of having children increases (not just food, but also shelter, education, etc) while the benefits of having a child decreases. A family living in a low-tech agriculturally-aligned third-world hellhole would probably benefit more from additional hands, especially given easily preventable diseases and unsafe farming practices have a habit of maiming of otherwise reducing existing hands.

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.”

The resource system isn't actually 1 Province: 1 Good is it? Productivity can be increased with investment?

 

[Tani Coyote]

As an economy becomes more industrialized, and further more service-reliant, population growth tends to slow, barely keeping at replacement levels if not falling in some cases. Probably because the cost of having children increases (not just food, but also shelter, education, etc) while the benefits of having a child decreases.

I know this is true in reality, but I like my idea better.

I'm using the Civilization logic for pop growth here.

The resource system isn't actually 1 Province: 1 Good is it? Productivity can be increased with investment?

A productivity tech is very possible.

 

[Sonereal]

I notice the people arguing for war are the ones who exploit it the most. I remain unconvinced.

At Sone's points:

The financial system is going to be structured so I can keep track of loans and their origin. There's a few large banks that control global finance, and with their global clout (branches in every country) they can repossess state assets in other states. Your influence investment is not a federal investment; repossessing federal property would be suicidal. If you're showing no inclination towards repaying your debt, the bankers will break you.

Something they don't do in real life. Banks don't want your house.

There are major multinational banks today with branches in nearly every country and none of them command the ability to repossess the assets of a state or government without some kind of authority, and repossession, if any, would be approved by the state government, not done in a one-sided manner.

With regards to terrorists getting parties of their own, that would be a case of terror groups having good PR. If one could somehow prove that they were guilty of violent behavior, however, disposing of their party would be a non-issue. The overall ideas is for NGOs to have a public and private face.

Unlike Command and Conquer, a multinational terrorist organization isn't hard to link with crimes.

Each state still performs espionage actions. In the context of the world, there's a gentleman's agreement among states not to run to the UN about it, because if they did, everyone would lose out.

I am so running to the World Government about it. If I can't destroy it, I will abuse it.

Hard.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Something they don't do in real life. Banks don't want your house.

There are major multinational banks today with branches in nearly every country and none of them command the ability to repossess the assets of a state or government without some kind of authority, and repossession, if any, would be approved by the state government, not done in a one-sided manner.

This world is quasi-dystopian.

And the assumption is that they did in fact get those local governments to repossess your assets.

Unlike Command and Conquer, a multinational terrorist organization isn't hard to link with crimes.

Probably not but I like NGO major powers.

I am so running to the World Government about it. If I can't destroy it, I will abuse it.

Hard.

That's what it's for.

 

[Sonereal]

This world is quasi-dystopian.

And the assumption is that they did in fact get those local governments to repossess your assets.

Triggering instant civil war, brutal crackdown, and repossession of that bank's assets because the bank doesn't have an army.

If is one thing to give the World Government magical powers of unification, and another thing to give banks the magical ability to enforce their wills on every country. You can only put so many restrictions on players before, predictably, everyone says, "No", and just go off the rails entirely.

Probably not but I like NGO major powers.

Being a major power should require skill.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Triggering instant civil war, brutal crackdown, and repossession of that bank's assets because the bank doesn't have an army.

If you are served a notice to repay some debt, you pay it. If you don't, then repomen can come and take your stuff. People like to give an attitude about it, but it doesn't make it any less legal for repossession to occur since you agree to it in the terms of your loan.

The federal government will give no legal standing to a subsidiary state as it has no ground to stand upon; they agreed to pay their debt and when they were unable, their assets elsewhere (this all being part of the same country and all; if you live in Maine but put up your house in New York as collateral, I can still seize your house in New York) were seized. The thing that happens to people every day in real life. The Union would probably respond to a state doing the above by removing its leaders, putting it under federal occupation for a few years, and then releasing it as a loyal puppet regime. They are completely out of bounds when a bank legally repossesses their assets and they respond with repossession of their own.

Let us not touch on the distinct possibility these banks were chartered by the Union itself to keep a solid grip on the global financial system. It's obvious where the bias is going to lie here. If taken to Union courts, the Union's response will be obvious. And enforced by the Executive Branch. These bank actions are fully supported by federal law, which overrides any grievances states may have.

There's always the possibility of the Consul not enforcing pro-bank laws, but that's not one to gear one's policies on.

This isn't to say debt will automatically result in the Bank Goons knocking on one's door, but if you have racked up a debt 1000% of your GDP over ten turns and have not shown any signs of paying up... well, it becomes obvious you have no plan of paying. Consider how, as large as America's debt is, there are still regular installments every year despite the continued growth; as you mentioned this is specifically why lenders agree to keep giving money to it.

What's legal is determined by who has the biggest guns. With orbital weapons trained on any would-be secessionist stronghold, I think it's obvious whether the states or Union have that.

Being a major power should require skill.

And any NGO that isn't tactful loses power rapidly.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Tani, I'm curious, in this new world order, will slavery be illegal?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Tani, I'm curious, in this new world order, will slavery be illegal?

The epilogue established that the Security Council held together specifically because states like Britain were convinced to adopt an anti-slavery stance, so the slave trade is definitely banned. Presumably actual slavery within territories was banned as time went on, given coincidental terrorist attacks and ignoring of one's requests in the Union if one happened to be slaveholding.

From an OOC perspective hell yes because after Sone quit it increasingly was a burden rather than an interesting dynamic.

 

[NinjaCow64]

The epilogue established that the Security Council held together specifically because states like Britain were convinced to adopt an anti-slavery stance, so the slave trade is definitely banned. Presumably actual slavery within territories was banned as time went on, given coincidental terrorist attacks and ignoring of one's requests in the Union if one happened to be slaveholding.

From an OOC perspective hell yes because after Sone quit it increasingly was a burden rather than an interesting dynamic.

That means I can do what I planned to do with Spartacus! Yay!

 

[Sonereal]

If you are served a notice to repay some debt, you pay it. If you don't, then repomen can come and take your stuff. People like to give an attitude about it, but it doesn't make it any less legal for repossession to occur since you agree to it in the terms of your loan.

It actually does change when you move up from the realm of private citizens to state governance, which is why Genoa wasn't taking silver shipments arriving to Seville at gunpoint when Spain filed bankruptcy.

The federal government will give no legal standing to a subsidiary state as it has no ground to stand upon; they agreed to pay their debt and when they were unable, their assets elsewhere (this all being part of the same country and all; if you live in Maine but put up your house in New York as collateral, I can still seize your house in New York) were seized.

Which is nice, fine, and dandy on paper, but never plays out that way in real life and makes no sense for a federal or state government to allow to happen without some kind of approval beforehand. If the state decides that the sports stadium it put up as collateral is no longer up for collateral, there really isn't much the banks can do except take it.

If the United States failed to pay back a loan today, a politician in Wisconsin won't move the militia to seize an army base in the name of the banks tomorrow.

The thing that happens to people every day in real life.

People, not countries. Germans aren't roaming Greece and seizing Greek government and private Russian assets.

The Union would probably respond to a state doing the above by removing its leaders, putting it under federal occupation for a few years, and then releasing it as a loyal puppet regime. They are completely out of bounds when a bank legally repossesses their assets and they respond with repossession of their own.

Like how the United States occupied Michigan recently.

How the hell did PACIFIC mess things up this badly in forming a World Government?

Let us not touch on the distinct possibility these banks were chartered by the Union itself to keep a solid grip on the global financial system. It's obvious where the bias is going to lie here. If taken to Union courts, the Union's response will be obvious. And enforced by the Executive Branch. These bank actions are fully supported by federal law, which overrides any grievances states may have.

Then you got every player claiming nullification.

This isn't to say debt will automatically result in the Bank Goons knocking on one's door, but if you have racked up a debt 1000% of your GDP over ten turns and have not shown any signs of paying up... well, it becomes obvious you have no plan of paying. Consider how, as large as America's debt is, there are still regular installments every year despite the continued growth; as you mentioned this is specifically why lenders agree to keep giving money to it.

Yes, this makes sense up until the point that payments stopped being made. To reach a 1000% debt, that means that country had been paying back debt earlier well enough that the banks kept lending money.

What's legal is determined by who has the biggest guns. With orbital weapons trained on any would-be secessionist stronghold, I think it's obvious whether the states or Union have that.

Because air power totally has prevented rebellions in the past? Orbital weapons and air power will never been the be-all, end-all in these things and completely ignores the fact that the World Government would be leveling the assets it would need to flip to pay off the banks that prop the government up. A federal government either rules through consent, through economic pull, or through boots on the ground. An orbital cannon meets none of those.

And any NGO that isn't tactful loses power rapidly.

Good. It would amusing to see the world's leading terrorist organization once again amass a quarter million troops and nuclear weapons.