Newbie McGM - Why the hell did we let Dem Taqat name the thread?
- Thread starter Mosher
- Start date
One of the problems with the war system is how it treats the war as one massive battle and not a bigass line of engagements and death. You'd think that this would be easy to overcome with a province system but there are just too many damn options to defend against. I think we should resurrect the fort system to make it less of a headache on the defender to actually defend an area, garrison 40%-60% of troops in them (with the rest as a mobile reserve in the center and whatnot) and make it mechanically ******** to blob all your men into attacking one fort by making flanks actually count for something.
Individual provinces are also pretty boring on the player level. The exceptions to all this, of course, are the I&B maps.
I'd like to see defenses becoming more automated in general and attacking be more streamlined. Ever since WWI wars have been spread out over longer lines of territory because it's really freakin stupid to group all your guys into a blob when bullets, artillery, and explosives are all things.
I'd like to see defenses becoming more automated in general and attacking be more streamlined. Ever since WWI wars have been spread out over longer lines of territory because it's really freakin stupid to group all your guys into a blob when bullets, artillery, and explosives are all things.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
I normally determine the size of the defending army based on how ambitious one's plans are. Taking one province = very doable. Taking an entire country = have fun!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Wait.
Are you saying that sending 400,000 men through a single province to attack someone is broken?
I think the problem right now is that defense is already too automated, which causes the rest of the combat mechanics to get silly. If someone who has a twenty-province long border sends all his twenty armies against a single province, the defender automatically defends that single province with all his armies as well.
The quick and dirty solution I used in NRIOT was to calculate things by the front instead of by the province. Otherwise I would've been spending hours on individual provinces.
Of course, hexes and named-provinces maps are still superior for more advance combat mechanics than most IOT maps. There isn't a lot you can do with provinces before hitting the brick wall of not knowing how to use programs more advanced than Excel.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
On the flip side, there are the "general advance" orders that consist of seeing the 400k equally across every province border, which is actually event worst.
The best solution is like you said, forts or cities to focus attention on. Otherwise, is is about taking as many provinces as possible.
AlexRomaniaGrig
Warlord
Hey guys, is it wrong if the ruleset for my next IOT is 10 pages long in MS Word, with Times New Roman font, size 12?
Robert Can't
Éponine
That is very very wrong
Robert Can't
Éponine
If you look at the majority of the rulesets for popular games (Excepting things like MP and I&B) they are generally quite concise. Its always better to have few good mechanics to model something rather than many.
Take for example economy. No game really differentiates between different sectors of the economy, such as resource gathering, the service sector or industry - its usually just bundled into economy.
Take for example economy. No game really differentiates between different sectors of the economy, such as resource gathering, the service sector or industry - its usually just bundled into economy.
christos200
Never tell me the odds
I had developed a game with many, many rules (althought it was simple - just had many things to explain) but I cannot find a map for it.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
The best thing is to have a bunch of complexity with the illusion of simplicity. How do I know this?
What do you think life is?
What do you think life is?
Tips from TK
Co-creator of IOT, GM or co-GM of Imperium Offtopicum V, Ab Antiquo, Imperium Offtopicum VI, Tiberian Sky, Iron and Blood, Iron and Blood II, Iron and Blood IV
Rule No.1: There Is Never Enough Time
Let me echo Mosher's first rule here.
You design a game and you thought, hmm, this is a good ruleset, I have ten, twenty players, a managable number, and then you jump into the game, and you found out that the amount of work you need to keep the game running to a high standard requires time that you simply do not have.
You thought updating will take you an hour, two at most. But this then becomes four, five, six hours. A typical Iron and Blood update took between 8-12 hours to put together, and that wasn't even a very complicated game. Iron and Blood 2, had it continued, would have eventually taken 24+ hours to update. Because the longer a game goes on, the more things you have to keep track of. Especially if, like Iron and Blood, the game world is meant to be dynamic, with lots of technological advancement, societal and cultural developments, economic booms and busts, empires rising and falling, and lots of unit types. In fact, you will need other people to help you.
Rule No.2: Delegate Tasks
You might need a co-GM, though personally I am uncomfortable with the idea, myself. If you have co-GMs, communication is key. Make sure everyone shares the same vision for the game, otherwise you'll be pulling it apart in different directions (this does not mean imposing your own vision on everyone else; synthesise ideas between different people, but once the game starts, make sure to stick to that group vision, with some leg room for rule adjustments). Set up a schedule for updates and things, depending on how ambitious your game is. If it's a story-driven game, it might help if different GMs look after different groups of players or regions of the world.
If not a co-GM, then have at least someone who keeps track of diplomatic agreements, roleplaying, player stories, and the like for you. Or people who can give advise on where the rules need to be balanced, if any. Though ideally this should be done before the game starts, which brings me to my next point.
Rule No.3: Start a Complete Game
As Lighthearter said, start the game knowing you know how to calculate everything, and the mechanics are finely tuned and balanced. I've been guilty of launching a game before it is ready, myself, and it is NOT fun and guaranteed to end the game prematurely. Unless it's a Calvinball-type game, you should not be making major changes to the rules once the game starts. Actually, even if it IS a Calvinball-type game, you need to at least have some idea about how the game will develop, if it is to last more than a couple of days.
That's not to say you can't make minor tweaks to the rules; the keyword here is "minor". If you really need to, if there's something that needs to be fixed, then fix it.
If possible, do a test run of the rules before starting the actual game.
Rule No.4: Know What You Want
Do you want a war game? Or do you want a nation-building game, a trade-focused one, or is it about explorers and settlers? What sort of timeframe are you looking at? How realistic? Is it going to be story-driven? How much influence will the GM have in the game (eg will you make events that the players will have to respond to, or will there be any NPCs). If a player leaves (and players WILL leave) what will happen?
Rule No.5: Find Elegance in Simplicity
The majority of IOTs die not because of really bad rules or bad GMs, but simply because either the GM or the players lost interest after a few turns. There are many reasons for this but one of them is that the game is too complex.
A streamlined, easy-to-understand ruleset makes it easier for players to follow the game and for you to manage it. It's easy to run wild and add new features and then you end up with 10 unit types and 20 government types and a massive tech tree and hyperrealistic economic system and then your brain explodes. Think: how can I achieve what I want in this game or model something while making it as simple and accessible as possible.
Rule No.6: A Dynamic Game is a Fun Game
But not too simple. You don't want a static game. Because then it's not a game anymore. It just exists, being boring.
It's all a matter of balance. You want to keep things moving, frontiers shifting, cultures evolving, economies developing, relations between countries changing, but at the same time you have to take into account the contraints of time and player interests. It's a delicate act.
Rule No.7: Communicate With the Players
Keep everyone informed, make the rules and important links and information easy to access. Make it as less of a chore as possible for people to play the game. Social groups is one way you can make information organised, but it means players (and you) have to check both the thread and the social group, so it's really a double-edged sword.
Think: you are their servant.
Rule No.8: Make Things Look Nice
As IOTs are mainly text-based, this mainly concerns formatting of posts. Make it look nice and make important things stand-out or easy to find.
The map needs to look nice as well; use pleasing colours and realistic-looking borders. If possible, tailor the map to each game's needs. Some games call for epic maps with lots of elements (provinces, icons, units, counters, etc). Others are just Risk-style maps with relatively few elements. Personally I prefer simple maps; see Rule No.5.
Rule No.9: Make It Special
What is special about this game? How can you make it standout? Is it a fantasy world or perhaps a region or historical era not previously explored? Or is it a new take on an existing idea. It should just be its sheer epicness.
Rule No.10: Focus
It seems such a strong word to use for what is essentially a playful mapping exercise with online buddies, but yeah. Focus. Resist the temptation to GM two games (Rule No.10.5: You Are Not Taniciusfox), or start working on another IOT or NES. One IOT at a time, and give it your best.
Of course, RL work/study is important. If running an IOT means you are neglecting real life, then don't.
Next Time: Tips on Making Maps for IOT
Co-creator of IOT, GM or co-GM of Imperium Offtopicum V, Ab Antiquo, Imperium Offtopicum VI, Tiberian Sky, Iron and Blood, Iron and Blood II, Iron and Blood IV
Rule No.1: There Is Never Enough Time
Let me echo Mosher's first rule here.
You design a game and you thought, hmm, this is a good ruleset, I have ten, twenty players, a managable number, and then you jump into the game, and you found out that the amount of work you need to keep the game running to a high standard requires time that you simply do not have.
You thought updating will take you an hour, two at most. But this then becomes four, five, six hours. A typical Iron and Blood update took between 8-12 hours to put together, and that wasn't even a very complicated game. Iron and Blood 2, had it continued, would have eventually taken 24+ hours to update. Because the longer a game goes on, the more things you have to keep track of. Especially if, like Iron and Blood, the game world is meant to be dynamic, with lots of technological advancement, societal and cultural developments, economic booms and busts, empires rising and falling, and lots of unit types. In fact, you will need other people to help you.
Rule No.2: Delegate Tasks
You might need a co-GM, though personally I am uncomfortable with the idea, myself. If you have co-GMs, communication is key. Make sure everyone shares the same vision for the game, otherwise you'll be pulling it apart in different directions (this does not mean imposing your own vision on everyone else; synthesise ideas between different people, but once the game starts, make sure to stick to that group vision, with some leg room for rule adjustments). Set up a schedule for updates and things, depending on how ambitious your game is. If it's a story-driven game, it might help if different GMs look after different groups of players or regions of the world.
If not a co-GM, then have at least someone who keeps track of diplomatic agreements, roleplaying, player stories, and the like for you. Or people who can give advise on where the rules need to be balanced, if any. Though ideally this should be done before the game starts, which brings me to my next point.
Rule No.3: Start a Complete Game
As Lighthearter said, start the game knowing you know how to calculate everything, and the mechanics are finely tuned and balanced. I've been guilty of launching a game before it is ready, myself, and it is NOT fun and guaranteed to end the game prematurely. Unless it's a Calvinball-type game, you should not be making major changes to the rules once the game starts. Actually, even if it IS a Calvinball-type game, you need to at least have some idea about how the game will develop, if it is to last more than a couple of days.
That's not to say you can't make minor tweaks to the rules; the keyword here is "minor". If you really need to, if there's something that needs to be fixed, then fix it.
If possible, do a test run of the rules before starting the actual game.
Rule No.4: Know What You Want
Do you want a war game? Or do you want a nation-building game, a trade-focused one, or is it about explorers and settlers? What sort of timeframe are you looking at? How realistic? Is it going to be story-driven? How much influence will the GM have in the game (eg will you make events that the players will have to respond to, or will there be any NPCs). If a player leaves (and players WILL leave) what will happen?
Rule No.5: Find Elegance in Simplicity
The majority of IOTs die not because of really bad rules or bad GMs, but simply because either the GM or the players lost interest after a few turns. There are many reasons for this but one of them is that the game is too complex.
A streamlined, easy-to-understand ruleset makes it easier for players to follow the game and for you to manage it. It's easy to run wild and add new features and then you end up with 10 unit types and 20 government types and a massive tech tree and hyperrealistic economic system and then your brain explodes. Think: how can I achieve what I want in this game or model something while making it as simple and accessible as possible.
Rule No.6: A Dynamic Game is a Fun Game
But not too simple. You don't want a static game. Because then it's not a game anymore. It just exists, being boring.
It's all a matter of balance. You want to keep things moving, frontiers shifting, cultures evolving, economies developing, relations between countries changing, but at the same time you have to take into account the contraints of time and player interests. It's a delicate act.
Rule No.7: Communicate With the Players
Keep everyone informed, make the rules and important links and information easy to access. Make it as less of a chore as possible for people to play the game. Social groups is one way you can make information organised, but it means players (and you) have to check both the thread and the social group, so it's really a double-edged sword.
Think: you are their servant.
Rule No.8: Make Things Look Nice
As IOTs are mainly text-based, this mainly concerns formatting of posts. Make it look nice and make important things stand-out or easy to find.
The map needs to look nice as well; use pleasing colours and realistic-looking borders. If possible, tailor the map to each game's needs. Some games call for epic maps with lots of elements (provinces, icons, units, counters, etc). Others are just Risk-style maps with relatively few elements. Personally I prefer simple maps; see Rule No.5.
Rule No.9: Make It Special
What is special about this game? How can you make it standout? Is it a fantasy world or perhaps a region or historical era not previously explored? Or is it a new take on an existing idea. It should just be its sheer epicness.
Rule No.10: Focus
It seems such a strong word to use for what is essentially a playful mapping exercise with online buddies, but yeah. Focus. Resist the temptation to GM two games (Rule No.10.5: You Are Not Taniciusfox), or start working on another IOT or NES. One IOT at a time, and give it your best.
Of course, RL work/study is important. If running an IOT means you are neglecting real life, then don't.
Next Time: Tips on Making Maps for IOT
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
I am honored to have been referenced in Rule 10. 
Otherwise a good-sounding set of rules!
Otherwise a good-sounding set of rules!
AlexRomaniaGrig
Warlord
Rule 10 is basicly punching me in the groin.
I DO neglect my real life for IOTs and I am already making the rulset for 2 more IOT's while already running one. And I'm actually succeeding, so i think i'm better than Tani.
I DO neglect my real life for IOTs and I am already making the rulset for 2 more IOT's while already running one. And I'm actually succeeding, so i think i'm better than Tani.
The reason I advise against managing several IOTs at the same time is that you will not have enough time to give them the attention they need. Even if you're only planning another IOT while running one, you'll likely lose interest in the one you're running to pursue the other one.
Real Life is important. IOT is poor substitute for face-to-face social interactions and, you know, actual jobs. Even if you're a teenager with no responsibilities. Especially if you're a teenager with no responsibilities. There's so much you could be doing, and you'll not have anything like the free time you have while you're in high school. IOT is one thing, sure, and if you find it enjoyable then yeah, that's great; on the other hoof, you need balance.
Real Life is important. IOT is poor substitute for face-to-face social interactions and, you know, actual jobs. Even if you're a teenager with no responsibilities. Especially if you're a teenager with no responsibilities. There's so much you could be doing, and you'll not have anything like the free time you have while you're in high school. IOT is one thing, sure, and if you find it enjoyable then yeah, that's great; on the other hoof, you need balance.
Similar threads
- Poll
