IOT Developmental Thread

[GhostWriter16]

Are you planning to join?

rather then going from 600-1200 it should be from 1000-1300 with 5 year turns.

I agree actually, though I'll probably do 900-1200.

There isn't always a casus belli when war starts and the people normally don't know or care of the reasons for war, so it shouldn't affect stability.

I needed to make people not declare war without cause. It won't be as bad as you think. Probably a 3 stability hit for DOW without cause and a 1 if its with cause, and then a gradual reduction if you fight for too long.

I don't know what the income levels are, but everything seems a little overpriced.
and war doesn't hurt stability as much as you think.

At the beginning, you get 10 gold per territory, though this can go up to 20. There is one level for your nation (To make things simple) though your rates will fluctuate during the game.

So with your starting income being 50, do you still think its overpriced? I think you may be right early on, but I'm thinking once you have 20-25 territories, it looks like it will be good, especially if you increase your income rate. It maybe could be a little reduced though. Any suggestions?

Also, the Victory rules will be edited out. Play the game out, whoever's the strongest at the end wins. There still will be bonuses for controlling an entire region of the map however.

 

[ilduce349]

I needed to make people not declare war without cause. It won't be as bad as you think. Probably a 3 stability hit for DOW without cause and a 1 if its with cause, and then a gradual reduction if you fight for too long.

The one hundred years war didn't hurt the stability of either nation...

At the beginning, you get 10 gold per territory, though this can go up to 20. There is one level for your nation (To make things simple) though your rates will fluctuate during the game.

So with your starting income being 50, do you still think its overpriced? I think you may be right early on, but I'm thinking once you have 20-25 territories, it looks like it will be good, especially if you increase your income rate. It maybe could be a little reduced though. Any suggestions?

Ok, I think its fine then.

Are you planning to join?

depends. On how large the map is.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The one hundred years war didn't hurt the stability of either nation...

I highly doubt that, but in either case its a gameplay issue. If you want war, come up with a reason. That's also the main point of the stability stat. And besides, I don't see it as unrealistic, if you want to you can spend gold to bring it back up, but then you are spending gold on the war.

Ok, I think its fine then.

I think so too. Remember on turn 1 your income is 50, which is plenty to sign a treaty, upgrade a stat, or buy a bonus card. And your income will most likely just go up from there. Remember there's no tech, so its not nearly as complex to run your budget. Also remember, there weren't massive mega-alliances back in the day, so it makes perfect sense to make diplomacy a bit expensive.

depends. On how large the map is.

Was planning to take the one from Ideology Wars. It seemed very close to the exact size that would fit my needs. Thoughts?

 

[ilduce349]

I highly doubt that, but in either case its a gameplay issue. If you want war, come up with a reason. That's also the main point of the stability stat. And besides, I don't see it as unrealistic, if you want to you can spend gold to bring it back up, but then you are spending gold on the war.

Stability should be a balancer so the small nations who have smaller economies can do almost as well as the larger countries.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Stability should be a balancer so the small nations who have smaller economies can do almost as well as the larger countries.

Well the thing is, as you expand, your stats will gradually reduce. You can build them back up of course, but that costs more money.

Large nations will still probably be better overall, but if you want to chill on a little island like England, and not expand too much, you could well get all of your stats to 20.

Right now, having an exceptionally high stability doesn't really do anything, but expansion will kill that more than anything, and random events can cut it down. Not to mention war.

The stability hit by fighting will be gradual though, so if you aren't a moron who attacks with no reason, you will probably be fine unless on the edge already.

The idea is, if you are fighting without cause, people will still be like "What the heck?" And I'd rather not encourage warmongering either. That you want to rule half the world isn't valid reason to fight. If you want to fight, you can probably come up with some reason. Not to mention, bonus cards may be able to help in that regard.

What do you think of the Ideology Wars map? I'm expecting probably about 8 people (Though more can join if they like.) Is that a good size? I think it is.

 

[ilduce349]

Defensive wars should increase stability though.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Defensive wars should increase stability though.

Wouldn't ANY war reduce stability somewhat? Certainly not as badly as an unprovoked attack, but wouldn't it still be reduced somewhat? I mean, war costs money, so you can either use money to restore your stability, or just let it fall.

I do see your point somewhat though, it would unify your people behind you. So the reduction would be far less.

 

[ilduce349]

Wouldn't ANY war reduce stability somewhat? Certainly not as badly as an unprovoked attack, but wouldn't it still be reduced somewhat? I mean, war costs money, so you can either use money to restore your stability, or just let it fall.

Actually, if the citizens of the country feel the war is justified, it can increase stability.
That is until you take to many territories off the enemy.
For example, before world war 2, Kazakhstan was trying to separate from USSR. But as soon as Operation Barbarossa began, they were conscripted and helped hold the front lines.
Hitler attacking Russia increased the stability of the country.

This is what I don't like about most IOT's, they picture war as automatically being a economy and stability killer for both sides. When it isn't.
Germany's war on France (in world war 2) strengthened the army, the stability and the economy of Germany.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I am starting to agree, but a baseless, greedy invasion would. So maybe that invasion didn't hurt Russian stability, but it killed Germany's. So how about:

If you declare war with no cause: -3 Stability

You declare war with valid cause, but you are still the aggressor: -1 stability

You are declared war upon: +1 Stability

You are declared war on with no reason: +2 Stability.

These exact numbers would depend on what your stability actually was. If you had a crazy high stability rating, gains would decrease and losses would increase, and vice versa.

Thoughts?

 

[Mathalamus]

the second one should be a positive number. or at least zero.

 

[Sonereal]

Germany's war on France (in world war 2) strengthened the army, the stability and the economy of Germany.

No it didn't. It created the illusion that it improved the stability, economy, and army. The cold hard fact is that if France had pushed instead of sit around on their thumbs in 1939, Germany wouldn't have won the war. For all intents and purposes, the Germans were operating a showcase army in 1939 and had very little in the way of actual supplies after and even during the invasion of Poland.

As for stability and economy, WW2 hardly increased stability. It was the ruthless Nazis that kept the country stable. The economy part is a myth. The Germans were surviving off of war loot and there would be hell to pay even if the Germans had won the war.

Declaring war shouldn't decrease stability. I don't see how it should. I also don't think it should increase stability.

 

[GhostWriter16]

the second one should be a positive number. or at least zero.

The reason it has a (Small) disadvantage is because you are still fighting a war. Just because we have a reason doesn't mean its going to be popular. We had a reason to invade Iraq, remember? Yet a lot of people opposed it.

Almost nobody, on the other hand, would oppose going to war if you were directly attacked.

I'll wait to see other people's comments on it. The game isn't starting just yet.

EDIT: Also I agree with Sonereal, though there is a case to be made that the German invasion of Russia did indeed increase Russian stability.

Double EDIT: I just saw this:

Declaring war shouldn't decrease stability. I don't see how it should. I also don't think it should increase stability.

Well, declaring war without cause is going to annoy people. Its also so that people don't go around attacking people for no apparent reason.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I upped the price of bonus cards, as a general rule, they are a bit better than just upgrading a stat by one point.

Also, I edited the Diplomacy rules so that any agreements with a nation you share a border with or who has a capital in the same region are half-price. This rule was always my intention but I had not had it in the rules.

Also, the intro has been edited because of the game-year start being changed to 900AD.

 

[ZeletDude]

What I want is a good old fashioned IoT like number two or before.. not any of this stuff thats going on right now.. oh and it needs to be modern ;\.. You guys are making them all too complicated.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What I want is a good old fashioned IoT like number two or before.. not any of this stuff thats going on right now.. oh and it needs to be modern ;\.. You guys are making them all too complicated.

Oh wow, I can hardly imagine.

I am already making the Medieval IOT, so somebody else will have to make the modern simple IOT. I have a feeling we've passed that stage though and will never go back.

 

[ZeletDude]

Meh... Much better these are even more complex than NESing ;\

Is yours gonna be world map? or like Europe.. ;\

Also Yeah.. that stage is over =(

 

[GhostWriter16]

Meh... Much better these are even more complex than NESing ;\

These are simpler than NESing. I haven't seen an IOT more complex than NESing.

Is yours gonna be world map? or like Europe.. ;\

Ideology Wars map. So Europe, Asia Minor, and North Africa.

Are you interested in joining potentially?

Also, mine was actually a lot simpler, now instead of managing armies and investing in individual territories, you mostly just invest in a general aspect, so instead of buying an army and having to move it around, you just upgrade your military rating, which will make you have more troops on the field when you invade someone (RON is my battle system.) Your ratings will drop as you expand (But they are also relative to the number of territories you have, if both nations have a military rating of 10 but one is twice as big, the one will be stronger), so small nations will have a chance at the beginning. The idea is to make it a lot simpler.

I have nothing against a "Back to the roots" game just for the sake of memories, but if you are looking for a balanced game, that's not the way you should do it. Too much potential for powergaming, and no way to differnate between military strength in war.

Also Yeah.. that stage is over =(

Yeah probably.

 

[Sonereal]

EDIT: Also I agree with Sonereal, though there is a case to be made that the German invasion of Russia did indeed increase Russian stability.

I could make the case that Stalin's love of periodically purging the army, starving people, and Gulags increased stability or at least, made the country look stable. I don't know how the German invasion helped stability in Russia.

Well, declaring war without cause is going to annoy people. Its also so that people don't go around attacking people for no apparent reason.

Fair.

It's your game (one that looks fairly interesting) and I figure it makes sense from a balance perspective.

On another note, I'm actually trying to devise a game that doesn't do territories like most IOTs and nation games do. The idea I'm running with right now is that players build either cities or forts on a giant world map. One would cost a certain amount of resources while the other would cost another resource. That way I can adjust "claims" so that they're A.) Small, B.) Balanced and C.)Interesting.

Edit: World map for those who want to do something with it. Tinypic or this board shrunk it so it should be cool.

Spoiler :

 

[GhostWriter16]

I could make the case that Stalin's love of periodically purging the army, starving people, and Gulags increased stability or at least, made the country look stable. I don't know how the German invasion helped stability in Russia.

Well, it rallied people behind Stalin. Though I'm not totally convinced of this argument myself. Ilduce's argument seemed valid. I don't necessarily agree. Though my primary reason is balance. You want to stack up stability in case war comes unexpectedly or you unexpectedly have reason to go to war.

Fair.

It's your game (one that looks fairly interesting) and I figure it makes sense from a balance perspective.

Just for curiosity, do you have any interest in joining when I launch it?

The primary reason however, is balance. Though if I wanted to perfectly replicate that, ANY war would reduce stability. I haven't decided yet, but the idea is that you'd rather not fight for too long a period if you can help it, but I don't want to make people AFRAID to fight either if they have valid cause.

On another note, I'm actually trying to devise a game that doesn't do territories like most IOTs and nation games do. The idea I'm running with right now is that players build either cities or forts on a giant world map. One would cost a certain amount of resources while the other would cost another resource. That way I can adjust "claims" so that they're A.) Small, B.) Balanced and C.)Interesting.

I actually rather like this idea, though you will need to make rules about minimum distance between cities to avoid it being unbalanced.

 

[ZeletDude]

I may join.