Letter to Santa (Gamemaster): Wishlist for 2010 (Little Upsilon)

Battle Royale World should be an opt in only for 30gc for that month. Each president should have 1 - 3 nicely stocked war slaves, that comes standard for all players opting in. Each president should have a winner take all approach, meaning he/she would fight through their region, continent and then last man on each continent. Maybe a round robin style setup to give all players a level playing field, and no fed wars, just pvp pool style purse with w3c getting a percentage rake on the total prize pool. This benefits everyone and w3.

It would certainly settle the score between a lot of presidents who cant fight aprt from their feds.

I for one hope this idea would be debated and improved upon.

I forgot to mention that a BR world would have no fed, no common market, no stock market, no natural disasters.

It would be a "Lite" version of the other worlds. This would reduce a lot on the technical issues.

That sounds like fun...I'd definitely be down for something like that

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed.

3. I'm doubtful that the consequences of having an player-controlled income tax setting would be worth it.

4. Sure, why not?

5. Does it really matter?
a. These exist in the game already.
b. Disagreed. This would give an unfair advantage to coastal countries, unless an equivalent can be built in landlocked countries.
c. Disagreed. No purpose.
d. Disagreed. No purpose.

6. Agreed.

7. Agreed.

8. Disagreed. No purpose.

9. Partly-agreed, they should be completed or done away with. I would personally like to see those unfinished features removed altogether rather than finished.

10. Disagreed. We have sneak attacks, just target corporations.

11. Agreed. I would also like to add that perhaps more time should be spent fine tuning the existing features and interface than on adding yet more features.

12. Agreed.

and one last wish to santa:space program such as nasa etc.to add it for the country score.

I have a suggestion actually make government type do something and add more types. its just a shame that it doesn't matter if your a monarch, dictator ,democracy or republic. maybe when people buy a country ask what government type you want for free. then to change it require a revolution where you have mybe a year or so of decreased production lose a percentage of your weapons . mybe damage or lose some corps. what does everyone else think.

I like Wendy / Spartacus303's idea of a Battle Royale World very much. I think you could get a budget to spend on ammo and weapons, which of course you would get instantly for your 3 well stocked war slaves. No WP, no Feds, and a 1 month time limit...now that would be fun. Empires would function as Feds do now.

Less focus on the Econ, so corps could be dealt with in the same way...pick a bunch or corps till you had your fill...cash flow would still be important in that you would need to decide whether to run a deficit and put GC's into your countries or try and make cash to afford more weapons without adding cash.

Actually...i could see sim having multiple Battle Royale worlds perhaps set up so you and your friends could sign up for private battles or you could play in the general Battle Royale world.

Sign me up...I drop 30 GC on that right now!

I want trains. Can we have trains? Trains sind gut!

Trains are part of the bigger picture.

Simcountry needs to implement logistics.
How do product go from country A to country B if it is not by truck or plane ?

There are no cargo ships for sea-bound trading routes and there are no train to go on the traintracks.

Trains are also used for intra-city transit and inter-city transit, and international transit.

I can't imagine a world without trains. Anyone who wants to go from Paris to Bruxelles takes the train, the plane is not an affordable alternative.

Also civil airports cannot currently be built by presidents without the "air transportation" corps. And these corps cannot be ordered by private enterprises.

Complete non-sense !!

I'll add that to the list of the 8,000,000 other things that don't make sense in the game...but guess what, it's a game...most games make no sense at all, at least this one makes at least some sense most of the time.

Simcountry advertizes itself as a simulation of the real world.

Well guess what ?
The real world has trains that go on traintracks.

Simcountry has traintracks but no trains.

Either remove the tracks or add the trains.
I think the latter is easier.

The added a "car engine" corporation which is completely useless. "Car parts" would of been better.
But now it bares the question, if there is a "car engine" corporation why not a "truck engine" as well. Don't truck also have engines ?

Or maybe it's time for electric cars !

So back to trains.
If there is a "car engine" corp that can be added with such ease, then a "trains" corp can also be added.
"Transportation services" would also be nice.

I want a petroleum products corporation to refine all my oil into everyday goods.... how come rubber and household products don't use oil, GMs?!

No, seriously. It would help me a lot...

I know you have good intentions spartacus, but I really do not understand the obsession...what exactly would be improved in the game if a 'trains' corporation was added? How would that make things any better than they are? I think there are hundreds of other real improvements that could take place which would be of value to players. However I just don't think it would add anything to anyone's in game experience (except for yours of course) by adding trains corporations. Explain to me the actual in game value of these corporations (and I don't mean telling me that train tracks need trains to function), how will trains corporations change anything?

As far as car engine corps, I don't get that one either (why not strut corps, transmission corps, axle corps, etc.), but I'm not going to spend alot of time thinking about it because none of the corps listed will have any real impact in the game othe

I like all of Spartacus/Manny's suggestions. I'll give my opinions of which should be W3C priorities further on.

Perhaps Manny's suggestions can be grouped into a few categories:

1) Those that make game play easier and less time-consuming (#1, 2, 6 & 7)
2) Those that make economic play more complex and interesting. (#4, 5,& 8)
3) Those that make managing a country more complex and interesting (3, 8, 9, & 10). Space program and making government types meaningful fall here also.
4) General guidelines for ongoing game improvement (#11 & 12).

I don't see any on the original list that fall into this category, but it's an important one,
5) Those that make the war game more satisfying--it's already complex and interesting but still needs...something.

Category 1--Jozi seems receptive, but seems to think they require a

eh, too late to edit that last paragraph, which included a lousy portrayal of Jozi's response. He didn't nix making a new world per se, just "rewriting the game". If I get it right, he could be interested in creating a BR world depending on how easy it would be to modify an existing world. And, he called FB a "battle world," not a battle royale world.

Jojo - I agree with you, but what I'm seeing is just more suggestions to generally make the game more complex...at least as far as logistics go. The only people who need this game to be more complex are those of us who have been around for a while, understand a large majority of the tiny intricacies and need something more (although I ultimately believe these will be amusing for a time but then vet players will demand something else). I think that all of us, nubs, vets, 'middle-agers' would be well suited to focus on game attributes that will make it easier for beginners to understand and thus make them more likely to continue in the game (which then leads to ultimately more people for some of us to either draft into feds, to create their own feds or to exploit for our own gain). Recent changes such as game level restrictions for corp building which leave players essentially forced to build corporations that can not turn a pr

Jojo,

Your categories are interesting.
However, I have raised points 1-3:

1- Allow transfers of intra-empire professionals from 1 screen instead of country switching back and forth
2- Allow transfers of intra-empire of non-military supplies instead of country switching back and forth
3- Allow the setting of income tax % for general population

in the chat with Jozi, and they were received well.


I also raised points 4 and 6, and there will be some progress made on those.

The chat went on a tangent as we discussed the effect of Q effect of non-military products on the welfare index. I was able to make a point that the Q of the products that population consumes should have a greater input in the welfare index formula.
Therefore, if you buy 150Q milk, your habitants will happier than if you 100Q milk.
Where you can replace milk with any product of your enjoyment.

Also, for short-te

Manny, hospitals, schools, much of government infrastructure is composed of 'portacabins' in my country, like lego sets. They are 'off the shelf', as is, I believe, a lot of US housing nowadays.
I proposed intra-empire worker transfer a while ago and it was accepted... you know how that goes.

Look at the stock of perishable consumables as futures, a practice widely used worldwide. That way decay is not an issue.

Income tax, another parameter to fiddle with, could be a useful tool, I'm undecided.

Your other points I mostly agree with.

Crafty.

If you will forgive the complete randomness and newbishness of the request, a completely unrelated wish.

Much improved graphical depiction of cities, or more specifically of the Capital of the Country. If not the whole city, perhaps a Capital District, which would have a Palace ( Royal, Presidential or otherwise) and, if desired, decorations for achievements in War, Economy, Population Satisfaction, or any of the Indexes we follow and rank on in the game. With this as a start, continual add-ons to reflect an Imperial Capital, for Empires, and expansions for Game Level achievement.

I know most folks are really into the numbers of the game, and conducting wars, or growing their economy, and generating GC's,--so am I-- but if anyone else here is an old CIV fan, the one thing I always missed, was the building of the Castle, as you progressed in the game.

A small and unimportant thing, that may require out-sized resource

Berard,
Your idea is even more useless than the idea of trains.
Nobody cares about the graphical depiction of cities. The city maps were a complete waste of time, energy and programming resources.

CraftyCockney,

You bring an interesting point about futures.
However, futures trading would require that these products are traded on a different market.

I think this would work well if there were less useless food/agri products and instead these were merged with the minerals to form a commodity market, which would be traded not on the world market but a separate market.

The fundamental difference is that I don't my country should spend to buy
4973219 units of internet
2440625 units of medical materials
and
571625 tons of Other Food Products

On OFP
My monthly use is 121,397 units
and I currently have 94,505 units in stock

Why would I want to buy 5 months of supplies ahe