IOT Developmental Thread

[DroopyTofu]

I think it might be interesting to have speeches or such for seemingly irrational decisions. This could be merged with my idea of having to write battle summaries. I say all this from my personal experience playing Civ IV. I always kinda dictate to myself what the leadership would be saying to explain themselves to the populace. "That peaceful neighbor overthere who have been our trading partners for years, yeah, I kinda felt like attacking them." isn't as fun as imagining telling an angry crowd, "The great nation of China has been mandated by Vishnu to claim the land of those heathen Japanese Jews. I understand you might be worried about your buisiness ties and trade routes through Japan, but imagine how much wealthier... etc. etc. etc" I think it would be fun if we incorporated this into IOT, whether as a crucial game feature or as a side effect that's just for fun.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think it might be interesting to have speeches or such for seemingly irrational decisions. This could be merged with my idea of having to write battle summaries. I say all this from my personal experience playing Civ IV. I always kinda dictate to myself what the leadership would be saying to explain themselves to the populace. "That peaceful neighbor overthere who have been our trading partners for years, yeah, I kinda felt like attacking them." isn't as fun as imagining telling an angry crowd, "The great nation of China has been mandated by Vishnu to claim the land of those heathen Japanese Jews. I understand you might be worried about your buisiness ties and trade routes through Japan, but imagine how much wealthier... etc. etc. etc" I think it would be fun if we incorporated this into IOT, whether as a crucial game feature or as a side effect that's just for fun.

to the bold

I agree with you though.

 

[Tee Kay]

But say I'm the CSA, and I go to war with the USA over a legitimate dispute over Virginia. Let's say China on the other side of the world invades Mongolia just because they want it. I should gain less infamy than China.

IRL the Republic of China does have a claim on Mongolia you know.

But, on topic, no, because I treat all claims as equally valid. I mean, in a game where a race of radioactive sultanas can establish a Muslim communist empire in Florida, you can hardly argue that territorial claims should be judged on historical basis. The point of IOT is that you have a blank slate on which you can build an empire of your own design, with no historical basis whatsoever except what you the player choose to have. While you may choose to roleplay as a resurrected CSA, perhaps in Europe there's a multiethnic state ruled by furries. Then historical claim applies to you and not the furry state, and it'd be unfair to put that in the rules.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That wasn't what I meant.

I meant: Say that the CSA and the USA claim Virginia simultaneously. They try but fail to work it out, so they go to war.

Second Situation: China had no claim on Mongolia, either by SOI or simutaneous claims, Mongolia is being peaceful and not bothering anyone, but China DOWs them since they want more land.

Neither the US or Mongolia has a bad infamy rating.

I'd say China should suffer more infamy because the CSA is fighting over a legitimate territory dispute, while China is fighting out of total greed.

 

[Tee Kay]

I'd say China should suffer more infamy because the CSA is fighting over a legitimate territory dispute, while China is fighting out of total greed.

In that case, yes, the CSA/USA shouldn't suffer the same amount of infamy as someone who attacks without provocation. Maybe half the infamy as the latter case.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Sounds good.

Though I'd definitely consider penaltizing the nation who provoked them as well if they made no attempt toward peaceful solution. Whereas in the China/Mongolia case China should get all the penalty and Mongolia none, maybe in the USA/CSA situation they should each take half. Maybe always give out a certain amount of infamy but base how much goes against each on the validity of the Casus Beli.

 

[ilduce349]

no stability

Stability is nessacary to prevent large nations from becoming to large. Its the factor that makes being a small nation better.

Too much potential for bias and/or accusation of bias.

Ok, so the casus belli system (where you had to appeal to the GM to go to war) was unbaised. The fact that the GM decides every battle with RNG can't be baised. The stories the GM writes about events isn't baised. The NPC's aren't baised. Your Infamy isn't baised (allowing some cases to have more infamy then others) But somehow, deciding public support of a country is...

Here is my suggested system.

Add another policy (like in TF's):
Nationalism vs Multiculturalism
Nationalism raises stability and decreases the negative affects of war, while Multiculturalism gives a small boost to the economy and increases relations with NPC's

I hate your Infamy because India declaring war on China (just an example) would be a more just war then America declaring war on China (due to border disputes, having hindu's outlawed etc. etc.).

I like things that add to the role playing (If you suggest NESes I will kill you) and this is a great way to add to it. having a propaganda campaign advertising to your people the reasons for war.
However there should be some Cultural Policies added to the game that just decide the People of your culture (Multiculturalism would also decrease the negative affects of these). For example:
War Mongering vs Pacifist
Racist vs Diverse
Athletic vs Scholarly
Conservative vs Liberal
Sexist vs Women Rights
Hard working vs Lazy
Religious vs Secular

Each of these would determine the average man's opinions in the country and government actions would affect stability based on the peoples views of the government. Then you add in this political policy:

Propaganda vs Public press
In Propaganda you can change one cultural policy to any value each turn. In Public Press, you can change as many cultural values as you like, but can only move each slider once per turn.

This adds complexity to the game, but not much.

The other thing to consider (which I am) is not state the positive and negative affects of each in game. Allowing the player to choose based on his roleplaying rather then based on whats best in game.

 

[Mathalamus]

some nations are designed to be large. like Russia, China, India, USA, Brazil, etc.

if i start as Russia and claimed all traditional Russian holdings to the urals, would i be needlessly unstable? ok, being Imperial may be enough to make it unstable, but it should fade over time... unless im acting like Stalin.

 

[ilduce349]

If you can manage the country properly, its not uncommon to see large nations have better stability then small nations. Pulling of a Stalin though would actually increase your stability if done correctly. Stalin was well loved by most Russians, and he killed the ones who didn't love him. Thats going to increase stability.

 

[Tee Kay]

Ok, so the casus belli system (where you had to appeal to the GM to go to war) was unbaised. The fact that the GM decides every battle with RNG can't be baised. The stories the GM writes about events isn't baised. The NPC's aren't baised. Your Infamy isn't baised (allowing some cases to have more infamy then others) But somehow, deciding public support of a country is...

As GM, I take a detached look of the game and simply enforce the rules. I don't like the idea of NPCs. I don't simply make up numbers in deciding battle. Likewise, the GM decide which country gets which event randomly. With CB and infamy, I try look at the actions of the players objectively, and I have a set of certain criteria for when a CB is valid or when a player earns infamy. All these are stated in the rules.

Roleplaying as the populace of one of the countries ostensibly under the control of a player is different. You are asking the GM to play the game as "the people". There is no sound criteria to rate the effectiveness of your writing except for the player's own characterization of their own public opinion. This essentially reduces the role of the GM in this case to that of a literary critic. And in any case it's redundant because ultimately the player has control of their nation and their public opinion and an unbiased GM has no choice but to judge it according to that matrix, otherwise the GM's judgement becomes too subjective.

Here is my suggested system.

No. Remember, this is supposed to be a simple IOT. We're trying to keep things simple. Social policies belong in the realm of roleplay.

The other thing to consider (which I am) is not state the positive and negative affects of each in game. Allowing the player to choose based on his roleplaying rather then based on whats best in game.

The player should know the effect of their actions, I think. It's only fair.

 

[ilduce349]

With CB and infamy, I try look at the actions of the players objectively, and I have a set of certain criteria for when a CB is valid or when a player earns infamy. All these are stated in the rules.

The same thing could be applied to mine. Except its in speech form, so it would probably be slightly easier to declare war. All this is is making a speech trying to convince your people whether or not you have a CB.

No. Remember, this is supposed to be a simple IOT. We're trying to keep things simple. Social policies belong in the realm of roleplay.

Who said anything about your IOT? My IOT is in Alpha/Beta form right now, and here are some ideas I might use when the Beta is complete. These suggestions are for IOT's in general, not necessarily a certain IOT.

The player should know the effect of their actions, I think. It's only fair.

In my realpolitik (which is restarting this afternoon) I was using my civic mod. Except nobody but me knows the affects of any civics. This makes it so that every civic used will be based on roleplaying, not OMG! (Insert random Policy name here) is over rigged! We would be ******** not to use it! From a roleplaying perspective it would make more sense not to state the affects.

 

[Mathalamus]

hey i thought of something.

to prevent the Governments from simply hiding in a special cave or minor city during times of war, the Government has to stay in the capital or the people will think they have abandoned them in time of need.

and to prevent the Government hiding when the capital is taken, they would automatically relocate to the next largest city, or a designated summer capital.

this idea was formed out of thin air just now.

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Ilduce- For a more complex IOT I like it.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

to prevent the Governments from simply hiding in a special cave or minor city during times of war, the Government has to stay in the capital or the people will think they have abandoned them in time of need.

Or... y'know... you could just roleplay better.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

IOT needs more roleplaying

 

[DroopyTofu]

This is just a small thing, but I think it would make the game much simpler. We should have a rule that you have to put your country name in the title slot of you post, so that people know who you are without having to go back to the first page to check.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I like the idea for the rule, but we shouldn't enforce it if you forget, that would get really annoying if you got booted because you "Broke the rule" of forgetting to put your nation name in your title too many times

But I like the idea of the rule, as long as it didn't actually hurt you to forget.

 

[ilduce349]

I think it should be enforced. 3 strikes (in a row) and your out.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think it should be enforced. 3 strikes (in a row) and your out.

Why not just ask them to edit their post and add it back in?

It can be hard to remember and its likely a lot of people will forget.

 

[Tee Kay]

Who said anything about your IOT? My IOT is in Alpha/Beta form right now, and here are some ideas I might use when the Beta is complete. These suggestions are for IOT's in general, not necessarily a certain IOT.

Well then I was discussing rules with respect to my simple IOT. I have no problems with you doing whatever you want with your version of course.

to prevent the Governments from simply hiding in a special cave or minor city during times of war, the Government has to stay in the capital or the people will think they have abandoned them in time of need.

The Soviet Government largely moved to Kuybyshev until 1943 during the Second World War. It's not hiding - rather a strategic relocation.

Or... y'know... you could just roleplay better.

IOT needs more roleplaying

Yes. Yes. Yes.

This is just a small thing, but I think it would make the game much simpler. We should have a rule that you have to put your country name in the title slot of you post, so that people know who you are without having to go back to the first page to check.

Nedim and I are already recommending that in our games, but people tend to ignore it.