Tecknojock
Keeping the world running
California believes that Japan has a rightful claim to Manchuria. Its obvious that China was to weak to keep peace among its savages and thus requires stronger more cultured rulers such as Japan to do so.
Iron and Blood - Game Thread
- Thread starter Tee Kay
- Start date
arya126
Squad Leader
Britain believes that one of the Chinese nations should control Manchuria, since it is a CHINESE territory. We fail to see how Japan and other nations do not see China's rightful claim to this land. It is part of China, and if Japan would be to claim it, Britain would consider that an act of war against China.
Britain asks germany not to waste its time. It is obvious that neither side will compromise without bloodshed first. Mahgreb is the key point. Neither side will give it up.
Britain asks germany not to waste its time. It is obvious that neither side will compromise without bloodshed first. Mahgreb is the key point. Neither side will give it up.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
1. That is OT
2. That started in the 1880s, so hasn't happened yet...
@Arya: he does have a point, let Spain get Portugal in exchange for peace.
ZeletDude
The Lion
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,490
Well actually the 1890s but my point is still valid the two have never liked each other, and I made it good by adding IC stuff, so lay off, are you the GM? No. Don't even bother answering btw. I won't respond, so don't waste your (or my) time. Thanks
A report released from Tawatinsuyo regarding China-Japan dispute.
More imperialist nations making claims that they have no right to. Manchuria is a Chinese providence and will stay that way. Japan has no right to claims in Manchuria. I support Chna in this dipute. All japan is is another imperialist nation.
More imperialist nations making claims that they have no right to. Manchuria is a Chinese providence and will stay that way. Japan has no right to claims in Manchuria. I support Chna in this dipute. All japan is is another imperialist nation.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
So the Nara period of Japan (the one that modeled Japanese culture for the next 500 years) had nothing to do with copying Chinese culture in anyway.
In fact Empress Gemmei was so anti-Chinese she refused to let a Taoist monk (who I forget his name) become her most trusted advisor, and refused to model the Nara Imperial Palace after the Chinese Imperial Palace in Chang'an. And Emperor Shomu didn't adopt the Chinese currency, and refused to let Buddhist and Confucius monks into the country because they were from China.
In fact they hated the Chinese so much they refused to support China in some Korean war in the 800s.
(btw that was all sarcasm)
Point being, they were best buds for a long time.
GhostWriter16
Deity
And I suppose we have no right to anything outside of Japan then, by that logic?
What nation are you anyway?
In any case, there's more than one China...
ZeletDude
The Lion
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,490
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
Its not, but China and Japan were good friends until the Edo period where Japan became isolationist so cut off ties with everyone.
They didn't start hating each other until the meiji period which started in the 1860s, which is 30 years from now in game.
Point being Zelet cannot say they always hated each other because they never hated each other in this timeline.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
I have given it some thought, and I am pulling out. My land goes to Quebec, who can take over for me as a properly united Canada.
I was here to roleplay, but every one of my allies is taking the objectives of the game to seriously and it is curbing my ability to roleplay the way I want to.
RPGs are not suppose to have a clear objective as that limits certain role playing opportunities.
As for the social group. I am not deleting it so that you guys can maintain the alliance and all the info in it, but am not going to check it again.
I was here to roleplay, but every one of my allies is taking the objectives of the game to seriously and it is curbing my ability to roleplay the way I want to.
RPGs are not suppose to have a clear objective as that limits certain role playing opportunities.
As for the social group. I am not deleting it so that you guys can maintain the alliance and all the info in it, but am not going to check it again.
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
<snip>
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
Orders Changed
Alright, please stop all the OT talk including past IOTs, and move diplomacy and historical debates into the Diplomacy Group please. And I will kick the next person who asks who plays which country without checking the front page or update post first.
I find that's a problem in every IOT game we've had so far. IMHO the best strategy is to ignore the more problematic players and just post anyway, and the overall quality/enjoyability of the thread will still improve.
I find that's a problem in every IOT game we've had so far. IMHO the best strategy is to ignore the more problematic players and just post anyway, and the overall quality/enjoyability of the thread will still improve.
Since a few people have asked, I'd like to talk about SUPPLIES
Your military need "supplies" (for our purpose the term also includes intelligence, training, equipment, and all other behind the scenes stuff) to fight well. Supplying your troops is not compulsory, that is I don't subtract it automatically from your income, but it's highly recommended.
Each unit you build will require some supplies each turn. One of the columns in the stats reads "Min supplies". This is the amount of IC in supplies that turn for your military to fight at standard strength. So let's take Bosnia for example; their two armies require 2 IC of supplies per turn to fight at normal efficiency. If they only get 1 IC of supplies - that is, half the minimum amount - then each army (and fleet, for that matter, if Bosnia has any) gets a -50% modifier to their strength. If they get no supplies, it's a -100% modifier, meaning they'd be fighting at zero strength unless there are positive modifiers to make up for it. On the other hand, if they get 4 IC of supplies - that is, double the minimum, then they'd get a +100% strength modifier.
Basically, the more IC you spend on supplies, the better quality and higher morale your units have, and they fight better. However, I'm leaving it to your discretion; maybe you might decide it might be better to spend it on building additional units. In some cases you might not need to supply your units much if you have overwhelming odds in your favor, and you might decide the IC is better spent on factories or science instead.
Now, for units that you use the same turn that you built or received them through events: these units do not count towards your "min supplies" for this turn; effectively this means they don't need to be supplied, and you only have to worry about the number listed in the "min supplies" column.
I hope that helps a bit.
Although, if you prefer that I automatically subtract the cost of supplies from your income, I can do that as well. You'd lose a bit of flexibility, but I can understand how it can be too confusing.
Orders close roughly 22 hours from now.
Your military need "supplies" (for our purpose the term also includes intelligence, training, equipment, and all other behind the scenes stuff) to fight well. Supplying your troops is not compulsory, that is I don't subtract it automatically from your income, but it's highly recommended.
Each unit you build will require some supplies each turn. One of the columns in the stats reads "Min supplies". This is the amount of IC in supplies that turn for your military to fight at standard strength. So let's take Bosnia for example; their two armies require 2 IC of supplies per turn to fight at normal efficiency. If they only get 1 IC of supplies - that is, half the minimum amount - then each army (and fleet, for that matter, if Bosnia has any) gets a -50% modifier to their strength. If they get no supplies, it's a -100% modifier, meaning they'd be fighting at zero strength unless there are positive modifiers to make up for it. On the other hand, if they get 4 IC of supplies - that is, double the minimum, then they'd get a +100% strength modifier.
Basically, the more IC you spend on supplies, the better quality and higher morale your units have, and they fight better. However, I'm leaving it to your discretion; maybe you might decide it might be better to spend it on building additional units. In some cases you might not need to supply your units much if you have overwhelming odds in your favor, and you might decide the IC is better spent on factories or science instead.
Now, for units that you use the same turn that you built or received them through events: these units do not count towards your "min supplies" for this turn; effectively this means they don't need to be supplied, and you only have to worry about the number listed in the "min supplies" column.
I hope that helps a bit.
Although, if you prefer that I automatically subtract the cost of supplies from your income, I can do that as well. You'd lose a bit of flexibility, but I can understand how it can be too confusing.
Orders close roughly 22 hours from now.
Somehow I missed this post. Anyways... sorry, but I'll probably make Ontario a neutral territory if you leave. It's a bit unfair if Quebec suddenly double its industry and manpower pool.
And criticism noted. I added victory conditions so that there's something to work towards. However, you can to ignore it. It's a bit like EU3 in a way - there are national rankings and national missions and "achievements", but you can also set your own goals, or if you just want to write stories, then that's fine. I realise some people might be overly obsessed with victory conditions though.
Similar threads
