IOT Developmental Thread

[Tee Kay]

Because I proposed them, I'll address some of your concerns.

2. no. NPCs are a pain. and it would feel crowded. really really crowded.

The idea is to limit expansion. Apart from the territories you claim at the start, you can no longer claim any more unless you go to war (I think there should be a way to peacefully incorporate them too, but it won't be as easy as saying "I claim such and such"). It also get rid of the "expansion in war-time" issue, where players just keep expanding into white territories (unclaimed) and dragging the war on and on.

3. what level of development? United states first world? Soviet union second world? India third world?

That depends on what sort of game and what sort of background story we choose to have, though when I proposed it I envisioned something like early 1900s European country tech level.

No, that map is fine. Some areas are fine, but the areas with the tiny provinces need to be consolidated. YES

I am glad you see the light. Yes, that's the idea.

Say, Zack, what do you think about using the HoI2 map?

Isn't this how it already works?

Not really. The IOT world is assumed to be similar to today's world, so not everyone start at the same level of development. At the moment, the level of development of a country does not effect combat, so it's not much of an issue. However, it is if we want to expand the economy and the trade system, or rework the combat system.

 

[Zack]

Say, Zack, what do you think about using the HoI2 map?

That map would be perfect.

 

[Tee Kay]

For those who haven't played HoI2, here's the map (made by someone at the Paradox forum):

Spoiler largeness :

 

[Zack]

It would be perfect if Texas wasn't deformed.

Oh, and a blank version:

Spoiler :

 

[Tee Kay]

I think I'll probably redraw some of the borders, especially those in Australia, Asia and South America, since they are horrible (case in point, look at Indochina).

 

[Mathalamus]

I think I'll probably redraw some of the borders, especially those in Australia, Asia and South America, since they are horrible (case in point, look at Indochina).

good map, but there is no frame of reference. rivers for example.

 

[Zack]

There isn't on the current map either....

 

[Tee Kay]

good map, but there is no frame of reference. rivers for example.

The actual map (in game, I mean) has rivers, as well as different terrain types for each provinces and a few impassable connections (mostly in the Himalayas). We could easily add the rivers in since they are on the borders of provinces.

There isn't on the current map either....

I think he wants to be able to know where the countries are, because you can't really tell with the blank map unless you're an ace at geography.

 

[ZeletDude]

I think I'll probably redraw some of the borders, especially those in Australia, Asia and South America, since they are horrible (case in point, look at Indochina).

Also the Colorado Arizona border needs major fixing, Colorado doesn't have an 'arm' extending into Arizona,
Also I think the Idea of the Hoi2 Map is Great!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Voting: Round 5[/SIZE][/U][/B]
- Use a map similar to IOT4, but with less provinces.

Not sure what the alternative is.
- Start with a blank slate; so, the world is assumed to be empty at the start. Then, players will stake out their claims (they can only claim once, and only a certain number of territories). The rest of the world (unclaimed) would be divided up into NPCs. If you want more territories, then you'll have to go to war.

No, but I would like to see more NPCs and Warlike expansion to be more popular. I'd suggest creating several NPCs each turn, and maybe 5 claims (25-50 territories in IOT IV being the most you'd get by simple claiming.)
- All the starting nations would have similar level of development at the beginning.

YES! No more GE, exc. Make everyone first world though, or just let people pick.

EDIT: Please keep the off-topic chatter to a minimum, I'm looking at you Dommy.

In this thread or in the game thread?

NOTE: I only said the things in bold, everything else was a vote tally, exc.

 

[Double A]

No
No
Yeah

 

[Mad Man]

It would be perfect if Texas wasn't deformed.

Oh, and a blank version:

Spoiler :

Maryland is partitioned in a really strange way that I don't appreciate too

 

[ZeletDude]

- Use a map similar to IOT4, but with less provinces.
Yea (I Like Tailles Hoi2 Idea!)
- Start with a blank slate; so, the world is assumed to be empty at the start. Then, players will stake out their claims (they can only claim once, and only a certain number of territories). The rest of the world (unclaimed) would be divided up into NPCs. If you want more territories, then you'll have to go to war.
Yes if its enough to make a good sized country
- All the starting nations would have similar level of development at the beginning.
Well people might want to be 3rd and 2nd world nations if wished. but other wise yeah

 

[Mad Man]

just as long as the new map isn't mean to Marylanders it can look like whatever you like.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I want to slightly change my vote on Casus Beli. I think there should be in-game penalties (Though realistic ones) if, say, West Australia and East Australia are at war, and Britian just decides to defend the west, even if the East did attack first, its not their business, and the people should see it as a worthless war.

This wouldn't apply the same to alliances of course, but simply when Nation A is attacked by Nation B, Nation C didn't even like Nation A but decides to attack Nation B in Nation A's defense, this should be penaltized via the people looking upon you negatively, draft dodging, exc.

 

[Mathalamus]

just as long as the new map isn't mean to Marylanders it can look like whatever you like.

who cares? i dont mind it when Alberta was chopped up to tiny pieces.

 

[Mad Man]

who cares? i don't mind it when Alberta was chopped up to tiny pieces.

That's because your a traitor to your own people, and there isn't a historical basis for Alberta getting devoured by its neighbours.

 

[W|M]

Yes
Yes
Yes

 

[Mathalamus]

That's because your a traitor to your own people, and there isn't a historical basis for Alberta getting devoured by its neighbours.

......so?

 

[Tee Kay]

- Use a map similar to IOT4, but with less provinces.
Yea (I Like Tailles Hoi2 Idea!)

I'm not sure the HoI2 map has less provinces.

I want to slightly change my vote on Casus Beli. I think there should be in-game penalties (Though realistic ones) if, say, West Australia and East Australia are at war, and Britian just decides to defend the west, even if the East did attack first, its not their business, and the people should see it as a worthless war.

This wouldn't apply the same to alliances of course, but simply when Nation A is attacked by Nation B, Nation C didn't even like Nation A but decides to attack Nation B in Nation A's defense, this should be penaltized via the people looking upon you negatively, draft dodging, exc.

You can't expect people to stand by and allow aggressive countries free rein, alliance or no alliance. At least declaring war on an aggressive country should result in minimal penalties as opposed to declaring war as an aggressor.