GhostWriter16
Deity
That would be awesome.
IOT Developmental Thread
- Thread starter Joecoolyo
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
A minimum distance wouldn't be in the player's benefit. Besides territory and being the only places certain structures can be built, a pack of densely-packed cities reduces the amount of territory the player has.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Ah this makes sense.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Tightly-packed cities with fort expansion could work though. The reason why players would want more cities is to have backups. After all, if you had one super city with a dozen of each building in it, it'll make a great target for late-game bombing runs. Losing farms in the early game to marauding warriors or losing factories in the mid-game is painful. Forts can be used to build military buildings that are, for the most part, immune to collateral damage for balance purposes but they can't build civilian buildings.
I should post the rough draft of the rules I have for it for it to make sense but I'm still working on a few things. I'm actually using a tech tree and resources in this game but I'm simplifying some things while expanding others. Right now, it's insanely stupid to wipe another nation off the map in the current rule book because of expanded trade and whatnot.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
That is correct. After world war 2, Stalin was loved by the people because he created the illusion that he was the reason they won the war.
And also fact about the stability and economy of a country:
If 80% of people think the economy is strong there is an 80% chance the economy is strong.
If 80% of people think the country is stable, there is an 80% chance the country is stable.
Human Psyche decides the stability and economy of a country, so by Germany creating an illusion that the economy was fine, the economy was fine. So by Germany creating the illusion that the country was stable, the country was stable.
And you can't argue that the German army was strong after the invasion of France.
The main reason my stability in my IOT is decided by an RNG (with army size, government speeches and random events and the size of the country also being factors) is because the country is as stable as the people believe it is.
Declaring war without cause can hurt stability, as the people wont want to fight for no reason, its up to the government (again via speeches) to find, or at least pretend to find, a reason for war.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Except at some point, the Germans wouldn't be able to maintain the notion that the economy was fine.
Not arguing that. Just arguing that the power of the German military is overblown by people. Between the Fall of France and the Battle of Britain, the German military was pretty nice.
That's really simplifying it but yes.
In the 1300s, I doubt a peasant cared about any war. Just the war taxes that came along with war.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Yeah that is true, but other people in government (Such as Parliament and the Aristocracy) will care.
I have decided, unless I get an argument from someone else or a completely different argument from one of you, war will hurt stability, for balance reasons. It will not hurt it much if you have a good cause, but it will still hurt (Happiness is part of stability, and people won't be happy about war taxes.)
I just thought of an idea though?
Maybe you should be able to call Parliament every so often. If you call Parliament, you can get additional tax money and will also gain stability, but you can't have absolute rule when they are in session. I bring this up because it was a common thing in the late Middle Ages. Thoughts?
I have decided, unless I get an argument from someone else or a completely different argument from one of you, war will hurt stability, for balance reasons. It will not hurt it much if you have a good cause, but it will still hurt (Happiness is part of stability, and people won't be happy about war taxes.)
I just thought of an idea though?
Maybe you should be able to call Parliament every so often. If you call Parliament, you can get additional tax money and will also gain stability, but you can't have absolute rule when they are in session. I bring this up because it was a common thing in the late Middle Ages. Thoughts?
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Well, yes.
In the Middle Ages? No it wasn't. Except maybe in England but they're special like that.
The war I have stability planned in the game I'm working on is that buildings generate stability while death of units/population/buildings reduce stability. If you wanted to streamline this idea, it could be that stability is something money is invested into.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
What creates a strong economy? Spending! If the people think the economy is strong, they spend more money, and it makes the economy stronger, meanwhile if they think the economy is weak, they stop spending and it makes the economy weaker. The illusion can be kept until Germany runs out of natural resources.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Yes, because we all know that the Great Depression could've been prevented with more spending.
The Great Depression is the perfect example of just because people think the economy is doing fine, doesn't mean it is. The Germans had to deal with rationing. How could they spend more? It isn't like they were being paid much after inflation started sinking in and with rationing, you could only buy so much. Spending does nothing. The German economy was in a rude awakening unless they won WW2 early. That would've mean the English lifted their blockade, no war against the USSR, and using war loot to quickly heal the economic problems caused from rapid militarization.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
What caused the great depression? i'm sorry, was it a stock market crash in 1929? Now what causes stock market crashes? It when everyone looses confidence in the stock market at sells. Now what is the other affect of no consumer confidence, no spending.
The great depression wouldn't have been as bad if the consumers kept going.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
But there's a reason why people started losing faith. It was because people were buying more than they could possibly afford. People had overextended their credits. People were taking out margin loans. Saying that the Great Depression was caused by people simply selling their stocks en masse ignores everything that caused rapid sell-offs.
People lost confidence because people stopped buying so much in the first place or do you think that the economic prosperity of the 1920s was going to continue on pace like it had indefinitely as long as people acted as if the economy was doing great? The fact is that people were overextending their credit.
Consumers couldn't keep going. Consumers were in debt. Consumers had spent too much. You can't say that because people lost confindence, everything went to crap. That's too simple. That's like saying "Why did WW2 start? Because Germany invaded Poland. Simple as that" without looking back to the end of World War 1.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
Yes I simplified it, but your post supports my argument. Why was the 1920's the roaring 20's? Because people were spending like crazy, and that was considered the best economy ever. Of course spending is never indefninte, and as a result the economy can never rise indefinetly. Eventually it will stop, and when it does, everyone stops spending.
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
This is hardly the thread or the forum for this discussion.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
should we go to the OT section and finish this discussion?
In some senses this does have to do with IOT, because we are debating as to whether or not war helps or hurts stability. At least that was how this discussion started.
In some senses this does have to do with IOT, because we are debating as to whether or not war helps or hurts stability. At least that was how this discussion started.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Nah. Rather leave it at that and let later generations deal with it.
I think war is rather neutral. For instance, when the Germans invaded the USSR, I can easily see how the infighting factions would temporary band together to fight off the Fascists. In China, the Communists and Nationalists more or less fought together against the Japanese (or at least, stopped shooting at each other so much). The USA banded together after Pearl Harbor, the USS Maine, and more on. So, having war declared on you shouldn't hurt stability I figure.
But on the flipside, aggressive wars more or less hurt stability. USSR invasion of Afghanistan. US invasion of Iraq the Vietnam War. English Conquest of Everything Not Bolted to the Ground, etc.
But in the case of the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, I think it was because of the high number death of soldiers is what caused backlash. Same in Iraq and Vietnam. After all, if Vietnam and Somalia went over as easily as Grenada, we wouldn't be looking back on those wars (or in Somalia's case, a humanitarian intervention that sadly took off more than it could chew).
After all, why would the people of a country not be excited at winning a war and conquering new land provided it doesn't come at a high cost? So maybe the onset of a war should give a stability boost in either case but in the case of an aggressive war that lasts too long, that stability boost is reduced.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
in terms of stability:
Winning a war=good
Conquering land=bad
If a majority of your people aren't your people but people you have taken from enemy's, then clearly they dislike the outcome of the war, and winning it wouldn't matter. (Unless you took them from a country with low stability)
Winning a war=good
Conquering land=bad
If a majority of your people aren't your people but people you have taken from enemy's, then clearly they dislike the outcome of the war, and winning it wouldn't matter. (Unless you took them from a country with low stability)
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
