IOT Developmental Thread
- Thread starter Joecoolyo
- Start date
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
so? anyone else can do it... its not unfair if everyone is doing it.
Zack
99% hot gas
I hate that idea. You shouldn't be able to change province borders, that would make wars take waaaaay longer. Plus it's unbalanced and unfair, as tailless pointed out.
EDIT: Also, maybe we could try to implement a rebellion system. The chance of rebellion rises if your tax rates are high, you're constantly at war, etc.
EDIT: Also, maybe we could try to implement a rebellion system. The chance of rebellion rises if your tax rates are high, you're constantly at war, etc.
Lighthearter
President of the United States
I have naval combat rules too if we want to include it!
Same grid thing, except there's 3 types of terrain:
- Shallows
- Sea
- Land
And five unit types:
Destroyer>Submarine>Cruiser>Destroyer
Corvettes and Shore Batteries are outside that.
Stats:
Destroyer:
Offense 2
Defense 2
Movement 2
Cost 2
Special: Sonar - Ignores Submarine Submerged bonus(see Submarine)
Favored Enemy: Submarine
Submarine:
Offense 2
Defense 1
Movement 2
Cost 2
Special: Submerged - + 2 Defense in Sea
Favored Enemy: Cruiser
Cruiser:
Offense 3
Defense 3
Movement 2
Cost 3
Special: Unwieldy - -2 Defense in Shallows
Long Range - Like land-based artillery, can fire a square away
Resiliency - Takes two hits to sink
Corvette:
Offense 1
Defense 1
Movement 3
Cost 1
Special: Attack Run - +2 Offense if used up all movement before attacking
Coastal Craft - +1 Defense in Shallows, -1 Defense, -1 Movement in Sea
Shore Battery:
Offense 2
Defense 3
Movement 0
Cost 3
Special: Dug In - +1 Defense, +1 Offense against Frigates, Submarines and Corvettes.
Rules:
Land is impassable to all except Shore Batteries.
Shore Batteries cannot move.
Land is always surrounded by Shallows.
Naval engagements are initiated through one of two ways:
1) - A player declares a naval engagement with one of his enemies and his enemy chooses whether or not to accept and meet him in combat.
2) - An amphibious invasion is launched and the defender chooses to intercept it. The attacker then decides whether or not to call it off.
Allies can participate in both land and sea matches as a third player, BTW. But only a max of four players at a time either way. The unit limit at a time is still seven.
I really want the sea combat, but its probably unnecessary. It'll just make things feel more real to me.
- Lighthearter
Same grid thing, except there's 3 types of terrain:
- Shallows
- Sea
- Land
And five unit types:
Destroyer>Submarine>Cruiser>Destroyer
Corvettes and Shore Batteries are outside that.
Stats:
Destroyer:
Offense 2
Defense 2
Movement 2
Cost 2
Special: Sonar - Ignores Submarine Submerged bonus(see Submarine)
Favored Enemy: Submarine
Submarine:
Offense 2
Defense 1
Movement 2
Cost 2
Special: Submerged - + 2 Defense in Sea
Favored Enemy: Cruiser
Cruiser:
Offense 3
Defense 3
Movement 2
Cost 3
Special: Unwieldy - -2 Defense in Shallows
Long Range - Like land-based artillery, can fire a square away
Resiliency - Takes two hits to sink
Corvette:
Offense 1
Defense 1
Movement 3
Cost 1
Special: Attack Run - +2 Offense if used up all movement before attacking
Coastal Craft - +1 Defense in Shallows, -1 Defense, -1 Movement in Sea
Shore Battery:
Offense 2
Defense 3
Movement 0
Cost 3
Special: Dug In - +1 Defense, +1 Offense against Frigates, Submarines and Corvettes.
Rules:
Land is impassable to all except Shore Batteries.
Shore Batteries cannot move.
Land is always surrounded by Shallows.
Naval engagements are initiated through one of two ways:
1) - A player declares a naval engagement with one of his enemies and his enemy chooses whether or not to accept and meet him in combat.
2) - An amphibious invasion is launched and the defender chooses to intercept it. The attacker then decides whether or not to call it off.
Allies can participate in both land and sea matches as a third player, BTW. But only a max of four players at a time either way. The unit limit at a time is still seven.
I really want the sea combat, but its probably unnecessary. It'll just make things feel more real to me.
- Lighthearter
Lighthearter
President of the United States
I know, but aircraft is too complicated to really bring in. That's why I'm going for second-best.
- Lighthearter
MathNerd
High on math (a, not e)
I agree with LH. Its going to get too complicated very quickly if we include every modern naval unit.
DroopyTofu
Double Bass Double Bass
I'm against re-drawing lands, but maybe provide a way to split disputed territories. One person could take north CA, and another could take south CA (we all know that won't happen; Owen will have CA).
I also think we need something to prevent every small disagreement from leading to the brink of World War. I have always been afraid of DOWing someone because I knew I'd get attacked from 20 sides, but waging war looks like so much fun. We need a way to have minor wars between 2 countries where only a few territories change hands and then peace is declared.
I also think we need something to prevent every small disagreement from leading to the brink of World War. I have always been afraid of DOWing someone because I knew I'd get attacked from 20 sides, but waging war looks like so much fun. We need a way to have minor wars between 2 countries where only a few territories change hands and then peace is declared.
DroopyTofu
Double Bass Double Bass
I had a bit of a X-post. I was refering to Math talking about changing territory sizes. I don't think that would be legal, unless 2 people want the same territory and decide to split it. I just used CA as an example.
I think what we really need either:
1. A completely new redesigned map. Or,
2. We could use the existing map but assign values to each provinces. Provinces with higher values would in general be richer, more heavily populated, and harder to take in wars (may need to attack the province multiple times).
3. I think we should do (1), making a new map with smaller number of provinces and also apply a moderate version of (2).
4. Of course, we can also get rid of the province system altogether.
The problem is right now warfare is based on territorial boundaries. Splitting territories may mean that during war-time a country would have to attack twice to gain that territory instead of attacking once.
Maybe we could have something like Approval Ratings. Declaring war each time costs Approval Ratings, and each turn you are at war AR will decrease unless drastic, unpleasant measures are taken. If AR is low enough NPC rebellions can occur.
Alright, since the stream of ideas has become nothing more than a mere trickle, and plus I announced it yesterday, the idea giving phase is over. No more ideas after this point, it's all voting from now on; and boy, I had to cut it off somewhere, we have a massive amount of ideas!
And because of this large amount, we will be voting in "blocks", i.e. more than one idea at a time. We'll also be doing this because we have a lot of similar ideas, and if one gets voted in, it could overrule the other, and we need to be fair.
So, what you've all been waiting for!
Voting: Round 1
-Establish an IOT "etiquette"
-A summary section with each update
-Athenian Democracy, i.e. players vote to kick people
-Lands of people who quit are made into neutral NPC
Please note that you are not voting the idea that's best out of the bunch. You are merely voting if we should keep them or not. It is possible to go a round of voting and have all the ideas stay, if they are all upvoted.
So, IOT community, please should I say, "refine" these ideas and improve upon them, and then vote "yay" or "nay". We will move onto the next round once I believe we have gotten enough votes.
And because of this large amount, we will be voting in "blocks", i.e. more than one idea at a time. We'll also be doing this because we have a lot of similar ideas, and if one gets voted in, it could overrule the other, and we need to be fair.
So, what you've all been waiting for!
Voting: Round 1
-Establish an IOT "etiquette"
-A summary section with each update
-Athenian Democracy, i.e. players vote to kick people
-Lands of people who quit are made into neutral NPC
Please note that you are not voting the idea that's best out of the bunch. You are merely voting if we should keep them or not. It is possible to go a round of voting and have all the ideas stay, if they are all upvoted.
So, IOT community, please should I say, "refine" these ideas and improve upon them, and then vote "yay" or "nay". We will move onto the next round once I believe we have gotten enough votes.
Zack
99% hot gas
Round 1 Voting
Establish an IOT "etiquette"
Yay, of course.
A summary section with each update
I'm not sure what this means. A list of all that happened at the end of the update? If so, yay.
Athenian Democracy, i.e. players vote to kick people
Yay
Lands of people who quit are made into neutral NPC
Nay. I say lands of quitters are dissolved (nobody owns them).
Establish an IOT "etiquette"
Yay, of course.
A summary section with each update
I'm not sure what this means. A list of all that happened at the end of the update? If so, yay.
Athenian Democracy, i.e. players vote to kick people
Yay
Lands of people who quit are made into neutral NPC
Nay. I say lands of quitters are dissolved (nobody owns them).
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
i vote 1,2,and 4. i do not feel players should have the power to kick a person out of the game. that should rest with the GM.
Can we give more ideas after the voting phase? I'm drafting something...
Definitely a yes.
Definitely a yes here as well. IOT2 has this and I think it has helped.
No. I think the GM should have the say on whether a player has stepped over the line and should be kicked. Voting to kick people implies that the rules are open to interpretation. Even if we do have a Cabinet, I think only the GM should have that power, or only the people in the Cabinet gets to vote.
Definitely a yes on this one.
Definitely a yes.
Definitely a yes here as well. IOT2 has this and I think it has helped.
No. I think the GM should have the say on whether a player has stepped over the line and should be kicked. Voting to kick people implies that the rules are open to interpretation. Even if we do have a Cabinet, I think only the GM should have that power, or only the people in the Cabinet gets to vote.
Definitely a yes on this one.
