Multipolarity IV Game Thread

[Tani Coyote]

Except my army is large and well trained. My army had better army quality than the attacking forces.

And they greatly outnumbered you and had superior tactics. Ultimately that's what won the day.

Anywho. Tyo is still losing despite all the casualties he's inflicted so one really can't say war isn't working, so much as it's difficult. His enemies have 3.5x more troops and what was it, 7x more income?

Anyway! Onto more important topics...

 

[Mosher]

And they greatly outnumbered you and had superior tactics. Ultimately that's what won the day.

Anywho. Tyo is still losing despite all the casualties he's inflicted so one really can't say war isn't working, so much as it's difficult. His enemies have 3.5x more troops and what was it, 7x more income?

Anyway! Onto more important topics...

They greatly outnumbered me, sure, but on the defensive, I should not be taking 9:1 casualties. I'm not saying that I should have won that battle; I'm saying that it should have been a hell of a lot more painful for Sweden.

And I saw Tyo's war plans. They were "all advance and encircle cities" in more words. Not exactly groundbreaking tactics.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I have never denied that my realism is selective, and I'm not going to start now.

This game was not built for realism or widespread war. That it has shortcomings in these fields is accordingly not much of a priority for me.

 

[Mosher]

I have never denied that my realism is selective, and I'm not going to start now.

This game was not built for realism or widespread war. That it has shortcomings in these fields is accordingly not much of a priority for me.

The game should at least accomodate widespread war, considering that there have been several already (Golden Horde, Syndicate-Iceland, Mongolia). There is a major war brewing every turn or so - not really so much minor wars.

If you want to design the game around deterring major wars, then you should put some actual deterrents in place other than "the mechanics for major wars don't work."

The fact that there have been so many wars involving hundreds of thousands of men, and very, very few regional, minor conflicts, means that you should prioritize making mechanics that work for major conflicts, or at least put in some proper deterrents.

It's not really a case of griping for realism, it's a case of griping for something that isn't stupid.

 

[Tani Coyote]

All I will say on the subject is this: deterrence is dead. IOT suffers from a problem of half the players caring and half the players not... no real nation would use a massive nuclear strike... or just turn a blind eye to genocide or hundreds of thousands of death.

I'd say we threw IC means to deter war out the window a long while ago, the handful of NPCs that throw a hissy fit (and barely make a dent) withstanding.

 

[Mosher]

All I will say on the subject is this: deterrence is dead. IOT suffers from a problem of half the players caring and half the players not... no real nation would use a massive nuclear strike... or just turn a blind eye to genocide or hundreds of thousands of death.

I'd say we threw IC means to deter war out the window a long while ago, the handful of NPCs that throw a hissy fit (and barely make a dent) withstanding.

If deterrence is dead, then you have to make competent mechanics for things that are going to happen if there is nothing to stop them.

You can't say "War is bad, mmkay?" without having something to back up why you're saying that.

With no deterrence, of course major wars are going to happen. Ignoring the fact that players will fight amongst themselves is setting yourself up for a bad ruleset.

 

[Mathalamus]

If deterrence is dead, then you have to make competent mechanics for things that are going to happen if there is nothing to stop them.

You can't say "War is bad, mmkay?" without having something to back up why you're saying that.

With no deterrence, of course major wars are going to happen. Ignoring the fact that players will fight amongst themselves is setting yourself up for a bad ruleset.

Truth be told, the Roman Empire considered warfare as an option. the Emperor rejected that option because it takes ten turns for the conquered territory to become yours, and that's ten turns dealing with a bunch of trouble with them.

since this game may not even last ten turns, id say that is deterrence enough.

 

[christos200]

OOC: Or you could just genocide the entire occupied population, ending all rebellions.

 

[Mathalamus]

OOC: Or you could just genocide the entire occupied population, ending all rebellions.

not really practical, since the lands i want has a Greek majority population.

 

[arya126]

All I will say on the subject is this: deterrence is dead. IOT suffers from a problem of half the players caring and half the players not... no real nation would use a massive nuclear strike... or just turn a blind eye to genocide or hundreds of thousands of death.

I'd say we threw IC means to deter war out the window a long while ago, the handful of NPCs that throw a hissy fit (and barely make a dent) withstanding.

Im sorry have you ever studied the Holocaust? The Holodomor? Atrocities were committed by Stalin and Hitler countless times, and these are merely the more notable of those committed throughout history. Genocide is ignored all the time, and has only become a truly touchy subject in today's liberal society. And a massive nuclear strike? The USA has used two nuclear weapons, but that is not massive. But bear in mind the world has come countless times to a massive nuclear war. No, those actions are not unrealistic.

Why can't you just make a simpler more comprehensive combat system that works? In fact how about this: Create a map of the provinces with terrain types. Hills, forest, mountain, or normal. Create different decimals for each, (.8 for forest, .7 for hills, .6 for mountain) and multiply that by the attacker's strength value after the rest of the modifiers. Throw out war plans entirely since all you count is how long they are and that is not only unfair but stupid. Then create a separate calculation for casualties. Really, you could use this as an opportunity to simplify your combat system so it doesn't make you go through hours for each battle while making it actually work. Because Moher is right; war is GOING to happen. A broken ruleset won't deter it, it will only make the game less fun, and honestly there is plenty of economic deterrence to not go to war already. Too much in my opinion but now that a few wars have run their course they shine as an example and deterrence.

 

[Sonereal]

Create a map of the provinces with terrain types. Hills, forest, mountain, or normal.

Most GMs rather kill themselves than do that, but I repeat myself.

 

[Tyo]

lolno

That's way too complicated for a single gm.

 

[Dem Taqat]

But bear in mind the world has come countless times to a massive nuclear war. No, those actions are not unrealistic.

Given that massive nuclear war has never actually, you know, happened; it is clearly unrealistic.

Why can't you just make a simpler more comprehensive combat system that works? In fact how about this: Create a map of the provinces with terrain types. Hills, forest, mountain, or normal. Create different decimals for each, (.8 for forest, .7 for hills, .6 for mountain) and multiply that by the attacker's strength value after the rest of the modifiers.

Because there are several hundred, if not more than a thousand provinces on the map. If you can find a GM capable of running a game whilst tracking all those provinces individually, then my advice is to dig through their brain until you find the computer somebody implanted in it.

DT

 

[Mathalamus]

Because there are several hundred, if not more than a thousand provinces on the map. If you can find a GM capable of running a game whilst tracking all those provinces individually, then my advice is to dig through their brain until you find the computer somebody implanted in it.

it is possible to simplify it to some extent. mountains only, since they are the only real obstacle that still exist, and make it general. all you need is a vague clue as to where the mountainous areas usually exist.

 

[arya126]

it is possible to simplify it to some extent. mountains only, since they are the only real obstacle that still exist, and make it general. all you need is a vague clue as to where the mountainous areas usually exist.

^^

It would take a one time effort of logic over where mountains and dense forests are. It wouldn't be that hard, assign values to each terrain type, and it would take an extra 20 seconds to tacit on to each calculation.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Or I could have just rolled with my original idea for MP4 and banned intermajor war entirely.

Note to self: ban war in MP5.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Or I could have just rolled with my original idea for MP4 and banned intermajor war entirely.

Note to self: ban war in MP5.

But how am I meant to be Viking in MP5 without fighting?

Suggestion: we can refine or redefine a war mechanic to set for the possibility of raiding, looting and attacking a provinces without war.

Of course it will not involve taking the province and may give a cause to war... but the Norse will love that for the possibility to battle!

 

[NinjaCow64]

Or I could have just rolled with my original idea for MP4 and banned intermajor war entirely.

Note to self: ban war in MP5.

IMO you should just have super nukes that cause leaders to get couped if they dare to use them, or to declare war on someone. Or something, I'm sure you'll figure it out.

 

[Ailedhoo]

IMO you should just have super nukes that cause leaders to get couped if they dare to use them, or to declare war on someone. Or something, I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Or replace nukes with alterative WMDs like beam satellites, nano plagues, super explosive missiles that are not nukes, chemical weaponry and other grand soups of destruction.

 

[Sonereal]

IMO you should just have super nukes that cause leaders to get couped if they dare to use them, or to declare war on someone. Or something, I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Like how Truman was replaced in 1945.