IOT Developmental Thread

[Tee Kay]

From conversations between D3K and DroopyTofu:

A CB will only exists for extreme differences in politics and religion. If you want to apply for a CB in this manner you have to PM a GM who will grant a total (no stab cost) or partial one (slight stab cost).

 

[Tee Kay]

I'm assuming since it was mentioned that people shouldn't have communism, then democracies and fascist countries would be frowned upon too.

You can change your government as new Civic techs are discovered. So if someone "researches" Communism then it would be permissable to change your government to a Communist State.

IMO democracies should be allowed. Not fascism though, unless like communism someone researches the necessary tech (remember the first person to reach the level decides on the tech being discovered)

 

[Tee Kay]

From IOT 2:

no. if i do invent time travel, it will be something to bridge the two IOT's. this one and Joecoolyos version. similar to that portal linking this one with IOTIV.

One more proposed rule: no inter-IOT portals.

 

[Mathalamus]

From IOT 2:



One more proposed rule: no inter-IOT portals.

*sigh* fine. im gonna have two copies of Emperor matthew barabas... and two copies of Byzantium.

 

[Joecoolyo]

You can change your government as new Civic techs are discovered. So if someone "researches" Communism then it would be permissable to change your government to a Communist State.

IMO democracies should be allowed. Not fascism though, unless like communism someone researches the necessary tech (remember the first person to reach the level decides on the tech being discovered)

I'm still kinda iffy on the whole idea of choosing governments, because most of the time, when we think if governments, we're thinking of ones that didn't exist waaay back in 1453. Communism wouldn't be possible back then because that is a late industrial phenomenon, and fascism wouldn't work very well without a propaganda, and propaganda is rather hard to do on the printing press alone.

Of course historical accuracy be damned, but even then, these two governments are literally impossible, just like inventing the nuclear bomb in 1453 or inventing inter-IOT portals.

Of course, this couldn't stop us from using time period governments, but in my limited historical knowledge of the time period, it doesn't seem like there's much variety (monarchies, despots, republics, archbishops, tribal ones, etc.).

 

[Mathalamus]

I'm still kinda iffy on the whole idea of choosing governments, because most of the time, when we think if governments, we're thinking of ones that didn't exist waaay back in 1453. Communism wouldn't be possible back then because that is a late industrial phenomenon, and fascism wouldn't work very well without a propaganda, and propaganda is rather hard to do on the printing press alone.

Of course historical accuracy be damned, but even then, these two governments are literally impossible, just like inventing the nuclear bomb in 1453 or inventing inter-IOT portals.

Of course, this couldn't stop us from using time period governments, but in my limited historical knowledge of the time period, it doesn't seem like there's much variety (monarchies, despots, republics, archbishops, tribal ones, etc.).

just FYI, if i do make an inter IOT portal, it will be invented at IOTII. not this one.

 

[Joecoolyo]

That doesn't stop me from banning it

 

[Mathalamus]

That doesn't stop me from banning it

i know.

 

[Tee Kay]

It seems most people have lost interest in this...

Joecoolyo, when are you going to wrap up the votes?

 

[Joecoolyo]

I guess I'll do it tomorrow, I was putting it off in hopes of more discussion, but seeing as how that isn't happening (), it's tally time.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Voting: Final Round

Tallies

-Tailles' proposed rules II/0

Combat
-RoN III/0
-AOE /0
-Tailles' combat rules IIIIII/0
-Dom's combat rules /0
-Lighthearter's combat rules /0

Well, that was a really boring vote. Practically nobody voted! I had to actually vote this time around to make sure there was actually some substance to it! But anyways, the clear winners are Tailless' proposed rules, and his combat system. So I guess that means we're done with the development and we can move on to actually making this game.

I think the first thing we should do is decide who the GM's are going to be.

I'll take the responsibility of organizing all of the GM's work into the update, diplomacy, and possibly maps (unless someone else wants to take that).

Tailless said he doesn't mind taking on economics and technology.

Now, all we need is someone for combat, anyone willing to do this?

 

[Zack]

This is getting to complex... All the game really needed was to ban a select few players, a casus belli system, and a new map.

 

[Mathalamus]

This is getting to complex... All the game really needed was to ban a select few players, a casus belli system, and a new map.

i agree with that.

 

[Joecoolyo]

This is getting to complex... All the game really needed was to ban a select few players, a casus belli system, and a new map.

Well, you could have brought that up when we were discussing Tailles' proposed rules.

Though, I guess, since we never had a lot of discussion we can still change his rules, what do you have in mind?

 

[Mathalamus]

Well, you could have brought that up when we were discussing Tailles' proposed rules.

Though, I guess, since we never had a lot of discussion we can still change his rules, what do you have in mind?

lose the overloy complicated stuff. this is a nations game, not EU3

basically just follow tanicius rules, adapted for the renaissance.

 

[Zack]

Though, I guess, since we never had a lot of discussion we can still change his rules, what do you have in mind?

The casus belli/stability and the new map proposed by tailless and an RNG for combat. I could handle combat if we use an RNG, that's easy enough. Include the code of conduct as well.

 

[Tee Kay]

This is getting to complex... All the game really needed was to ban a select few players, a casus belli system, and a new map.

Perhaps you should've brought this up a little earlier.

Though, I guess, since we never had a lot of discussion we can still change his rules

I'm sorry I included all the things you guys voted for earlier in the thread.

lose the overloy complicated stuff. this is a nations game, not EU3

basically just follow tanicius rules, adapted for the renaissance.

Ah, you wouldn't want to know what my initial draft rules looks like then...

If we just going to follow Tanicius' rules, then what's the point of this thread?

The casus belli/stability and the new map proposed by tailless and an RNG for combat. I could handle combat if we use an RNG, that's easy enough. Include the code of conduct as well.

NO NOT RNG PLEASE OH GOD NO

It's simple, but it's too simple. There's no way to factor in relative strengths of countries, and because it's all random we'd just get the sort of aimless, endless, neverending war we had in every version of IOT so far.

You don't like my rules, alright, but PLEASE ANYTHING BUT A RETURN TO RNG

 

[Mathalamus]

Ah, you wouldn't want to know what my initial draft rules looks like then...

If we just going to follow Tanicius' rules, then what's the point of this thread?

itll be a different era, with a more detailed map.

NO NOT RNG PLEASE OH GOD NO

It's simple, but it's too simple. There's no way to factor in relative strengths of countries, and because it's all random we'd just get the sort of aimless, endless, neverending war we had in every version of IOT so far.

You don't like my rules, alright, but PLEASE ANYTHING BUT A RETURN TO RNG

i disagree. RNG is a good thing when the GM dont want to spend hours doing a single battle. keep it in.

 

[Tee Kay]

i disagree. RNG is a good thing when the GM dont want to spend hours doing a single battle. keep it in.

I had this in mind when writing the rules. It will not take hours to do a single battle. It'd be more like two minutes, if that. Just get base strength of the two sides, add all the modifiers from tech, terrain and such (in percentage, clearly displayed in the summary section), roll a dice for that extra randomness factor, then compare to see who wins, and you're done. That's it.

It's only a step up from the rule already in use for Europe's Burning. With multiple GMs we can get it done very quickly. If you want, I can increase the cost for each armies so that one player does not control 20+ armies in the game.

 

[MathNerd]

For the sake of realism, could we use RNG for different sectors of the army? For example, use RNG for Navy, then do it for Air, then do it for Land, etc. Each player can say how he wants to split his total army strength between the sectors.