IOT Developmental Thread

[DroopyTofu]

I would like to officially suggest that we make free religion an option unlocked much later in the tech tree. It was not common in the 1400's and seems out of place. Since religion is a Caucus Belli, this takes away the grounds for someone to DOW on you if you are Free Religion.

 

[ilduce349]

No it doesn't free religion counts as a religion, I can declare war on you for oppressing the people of the minor religions and you can declare war on me for refusing to acknowledge your religion.

 

[Arakhor]

Casus belli - cause for war.

 

[W|M]

´Casus Belli´ means ´Good Cause´.

 

[Arakhor]

Actually, it literally means "occasion for war", hence the words "antebellum", "bellicose" and "belligerent".

 

[madviking]

´Casus Belli´ means ´Good Cause´.

Belli (= war [ex. "belligerent"])

Not

Bello (= beautiful [French ex. "belle"])

xpost with above.

 

[Cull]

Let's clear up some history here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Persian_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_Period

Thats just off the top of my head. None of these came before 1650, and some people complain about no large alliance until NATO and the Warsaw Pact. I haven't even touched any of the more modern wars.

I didn't touch the Renaissance period with the rivaling city states, new nations, unification of Italy and Germany, and yet I still have five examples off the top of my head prior to the American Revolution.

So think before you go sprouting off about "THATS NOT REALISTIC"

 

[flamingzaroc121]

^^But that doesnt necessarily make for good gameplay. If two alliances became big enough, soon everyone would have to join one or the other to avoid being caught in the crossfire. And while World War may be fun, that might not start for a while leading to mostly boring gameplay. It could end up like the Cold War with no one daring to attack the other.

It might work, but I'd rather limit the alliances. Or at least limit the ones that actually mean something.

 

[Cull]

We can tinker with the gameplay aspect of the military, as right now its more allies=instant win 9/10 times. But I wanted to point that out because people were moaning how it was "unrealistic" and not "historical" to have big alliances.

 

[GhostWriter16]

^^But that doesnt necessarily make for good gameplay. If two alliances became big enough, soon everyone would have to join one or the other to avoid being caught in the crossfire. And while World War may be fun, that might not start for a while leading to mostly boring gameplay. It could end up like the Cold War with no one daring to attack the other.

It might work, but I'd rather limit the alliances. Or at least limit the ones that actually mean something.

Well, in the modern era I guess its OK as that's what really happened.

Not in any other era.

We can tinker with the gameplay aspect of the military, as right now its more allies=instant win 9/10 times. But I wanted to point that out because people were moaning how it was "unrealistic" and not "historical" to have big alliances.

I agree with you alliances happened but they were usually temporary and more of a "We both want to kill this target" thing than a long term DP. Still, alliance with 2-3 people =/= alliance with 5 or more people, the latter just didn't happen back when.

 

[Cull]

Yes it did mang. Please see the thirty years war, the hundred years war, and so on. Those alliances were for common gain, defense or offense, and were often huge.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yes it did mang. Please see the thirty years war, the hundred years war, and so on. Those alliances were for common gain, defense or offense, and were often huge.

Then why was it 90% of wars were 1 VS 1?

Answer: They were TEMPORARY alliances, not ones with substance like NATO and not as many.

I'm not saying "Ban them" I'm saying "They need limits." Maybe do it like a reverse casus beli system, you have to have a good reason to team up with someone.

 

[Cull]

lolwut. There were NOT 1-1, many wars were bringing in numerous allies. Answer: Alliances that last are the good kinds.

 

[W|M]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Spanish_Succession
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Crusade

see the belligeretents.

 

[Cull]

Thirty year wars and hundred years war shows it much better, but those work too.

 

[Lord of Elves]

The idea of limiting players to one alliance is a clearly arbitrary and misguided one.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The idea of limiting players to one alliance is a clearly arbitrary and misguided one.

Not necessarily. Remember we are discussing the Renaissance. I would not agree with this for a modern or late industrial game.

And, I prefer my reverse casus beli system better. Where, you have to have a good reason to form an alliance.

 

[Cull]

Yeah, except the fact of all the links I/others gave you, and then you say RENAISSANCE HAS NO BIG ALLIANCES GRR. THERE ARE NO ALLIANCE IN ALLIANCE. GRR. like some teenager. Don't look at my age of course.

The reversal casus belli system is useless, as you c an make claims up such as "want to protect my holding my joining this alliance" 10/10.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Not necessarily. Remember we are discussing the Renaissance. I would not agree with this for a modern or late industrial game.

And, I prefer my reverse casus beli system better. Where, you have to have a good reason to form an alliance.

Sorry, Dom, but for some reason I doubt you have much knowledge of the time period. You should probably look up the Italian City-States, and the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[Cull]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_city-states

So you don't have to work and all that.