| The Walking Glitch (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 06:29 am 
There was a recent suggestion that got passed in the voting, concerning the security council:
Quote:15. Security Counsel Troops Status: Please read our response [ top ]
Detailed Description:
New idea I thought of each world has a Security Counsel, whos main issue is to send 5T here or there what about troops? Just like the United Nations the Security Counsel could sent troops each country worldwide must donate troops based on a 10th of a percent. Based on all the worlds pop thats a total of 330M Security Counsel troops. They can be provided to any country who the counsel deems necessary. The troops dont count toward a players pop but have there own pop # on a players news bar. The Security counsel would supply troops and the weapons must be provided at the cost of the player they must pay 15% more then if to having the defense themselves as well as a 5B a month Counsel tax. Troops are only defense only and cannot be used as offensive troops. This can only be applied for a duration of 24game months after which time a 12month cool down. Security Counsel will have the power to stall a war. By that meaning once Security Counsel troops are sent any countries involved in the war will be restricted to just them. No other countries may dec war well a player has UN troops in there country. Troops would also help with disasters speeding up recovery time. (for more info check the forums-general-lets make ideas)
16 gamers voted for the proposal.
11 gamers voted against the proposal.
The proposal has been ACCEPTED.
W3Creative reaction:
This was suggested before. The comparison with the UN is not good. The US troops don?t fight anyone. They keep the peace. The main problem of course is who would decide where to send them and how they should be used.
If this is integrated, I do not wish to have to contribute mandatory amounts of pop, and soldiers. It should be a donation basis. No country in the real world is forced to be troops of global police. If you want something done in the name of the security council, then donate troops, and money, and any other resources that might be integrated. If it is however mandatory, make the amounts of pop/soldiers/money that must be given, much lower than was stated above, and make an option to donate more. The reason for this, is because some countries have a terrible time managing their economies as-is, and this would make it that much harder.
I am open to feedback, and DO NOT start an argument or war of any sort, including a flame war over this PLEASE.
Regards,
TWG |
| Accordion_This (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 06:33 am
I agree completely. UN and NATO forces are made up of donated personnel, not conscripted troops. What if a nation wishes to be completely peaceful in every way? |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 06:40 am
i posted it and agreed u shouldnt have to but on the plus it would only effect LLW/MLM (both of which good econs always have demand of). Lets say the SC pays your troops thats money u get for free |
| Scarlet (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 10:22 am
I would never allow my soldiers to fight under the dictate of any Security Council for whatever reason. |
| Noproblem (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 10:59 am
The Security Council certainly has enough money to pay troops without additional fees! |
| Josias (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 02:51 pm
i find the thought interesting. but honestly, i think it gives to much power to people who'd rather take no risks, and dictate what others do. in the future, when the war levels are more important for game levels, meaning, the higher scoring players will all be high war levels... that way, players can't act against other players with another level of protection. jeese, we really DON'T need another level of protection.
and even then, i think this plays into the hands of large feds. over all, players don't really want large feds running entire worlds.
not to mention, in SimCountry terms, what does "just keep the peace," mean? who would control such units? if it amounts to just extra light jeeps and tanks as paint blockers, thats one thing. but are you talking a third person can drop bombs on me with out declaring war? or my victim can have extra fighter plains, to shoot back? i think this one is better left alone. |
| Silverhill Trader (Kebir Blue) | Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 04:12 pm
"I think this one is better left alone".
Yes, please leave this one alone. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 05:42 pm
My original idea was tuned for more to sending troops to help with naturals disasters/War recovery/Nuke(chem) attacks. They'd go and be stationed with no cost the the country. When accompanied with relief aid from a country(s) they would increase the recovery time and the immigration to the country helping the recover process.
The war application would be paint blocking. They'd form occupation units and paint block. At the same time they could prevent additional countries from decing. The Security Council would need less then 4 votes against the proposal. The troops would be occupation units who paint block and they prevent further decs on the country.
Either should they player win or lose the war they stay in and become relief troops. They in for minimum 12months after that they start reducing there numbers by lets say 10% monthly so each month as they reduced so are your benifts. so the duration would be 22months and to prevent a free WP lets say a 60month cool down instead of 12.
Side not you should read my thread the hole idea is there |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 06:04 pm
The war application would be paint blocking. They'd form occupation units and paint block. At the same time they could prevent additional countries from decing. The Security Council would need less then 4 votes against the proposal. The troops would be occupation units who paint block and they prevent further decs on the country.
Based on that alone = abuse or will be abused. |
| SuperSoldierRCP (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 06:13 pm
thats why a timer should be set u can only use them once every 60months. if need be make it longer |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 06:19 pm
No, the security council can be manipulated through membership, they should not be allowed to directly interfere with wars. Blocking ground troops, no. As far as enforcing peace, there is a resolution/mechanism for that already in place. Alternative mutual defense is left for federations. The security council barely passes aid resolutions. Why should it be entrusted to meddle like this when it fails to complete such menial tasks already delegated to it? |
| The Walking Glitch (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 07:21 pm
Actually, I am thinking about what Psycho said, and that is absolutely true. The Feds can be the UN and NATO. |
| Scarlet (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 11:48 pm
NATO is the equivalent of a federation. |
| The Walking Glitch (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, February 20, 2011 - 01:13 am
Exactly my point with NATO Scarlet, sorry about that being a little cryptic. |
| Border C | Monday, February 21, 2011 - 07:55 am
Fie, fie, fie. And double the fie.
**Put the double fie on Scarlet's tab** |
