| Monday, September 30, 2013 - 02:24 am |
I say we go with James the fair's Idea and allow countries to be unified into one. Because as we've gone over Britain's empire spanned all kinds of different areas of the world and they became Britain's protectorates, and not part of Britain. Andy said this was the realistic thing and is why you can't do it in the game (combing countries that is), but your forgetting about annexation.
Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the permanent acquisition and incorporation of some territorial entity into another geo-political entity (either adjacent or non-contiguous). Usually, it is implied that the territory and population being annexed is the smaller, more peripheral, and weaker of the two merging entities, barring physical size. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities.
Like Britian did to Scotland (ye bastards will feel our wrath sooner or later) and tried to do to Ireland, countries in the real world can annex other small or equal in size or even larger in size into themselves to increase their own size. If my country *Empire of Metudela* wanted to invade their current "RP ally" *The Independent State of Vibressa* and conquer them then Metudela should be able to annex Vibressa instead of them just becoming a protectorate.
Of course this can have certain rules. If your main country is connected to a country by land and you invade this country you can annex it and then you can do the same to any country it's connected to (Metudela >> Vibressa). And then there is protectorate (the current way) where say Metudela wanted to take Pozana a country that has another country between it and Metudela, if Metudela invades and conquers than unless I have the other country annexed I can only make Pozana a protectorate. And last if I have a protectorate and then annex a country near said protectorate then I can go to the settings of the protectorate and annex it now that is is connected to my main.
BUT..... there will be a special line that still shows the separation of the countries before annexation and instead of loosing the entire large country in a war you only loose the annexed region that was attacked. So for players that have annexed countries their regions get attacked and taken instead of the country. So Metudela would take Vibressa and annex it into The Empire of Metudela but it would be known as the Vibressa region on the war maps.
Empire of Metudela - Metudela Region(Capital)
Empire of Metudela - Vibressa Region
Pozan - Empire of Metudela Protectorate
| Monday, September 30, 2013 - 02:25 am |
I put up the poll so please vote at will.
| Monday, September 30, 2013 - 12:14 pm |
3/2 are the current polls
| Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 12:26 am |
would be awesome to combine countries, but game owner don't want to mess up the foundation of the game.
every country, corp, product, etc has an account number so that a debit and credit system should be able to take place.
combining and separating countries at randomness by players may create too much works for gm/owner to fix?
i want to manage all my country's corps on one page instead as it is existing that i have to go to as many pages as the number of countries i have
| Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 01:34 pm |
A way to solve that is already in the main idea i placed, the border line that keeps countries separate allows for the id's to be kept the same.
The annexation would also be optional to players and not mandatory.
| Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 01:47 pm |
your concept more complicated than i think
to win a war against a big country would be difficult because how would you do war index?
have to destroy a lot of things to bring down war index for a big country?
should be winner takes all of the whole country?
| Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 01:49 pm |
or war index for each country/state/region?
interesting that would be
i just want to combine countries so i can manage every thing as one. i hate the current way to manage countries, takes hours to manually do things from country to country
| Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 02:04 pm |
Did you even read the entire idea?
"there will be a special line that still shows the separation of the countries before annexation and instead of loosing the entire large country in a war you only loose the annexed region that was attacked. "
It works in separate war indexes for each region.
| Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 06:34 pm |
Are you referring to my "New version of the Independent/Puppet state Status" idea what I did several months ago? if it is, I appreciate you bringing this back up for me. As I really thought my idea was dead now.
| Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 10:01 pm |
yes, I am James, just redone and revamped
| Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 11:51 pm |
i proposed an idea like this over one earth year ago, many players and gm's here like the way things are on sc. change is very difficult for many to adapt.
i understand what you're trying to do. just go download the statistics in your world, and you may see that what i mean about making debit/credit work smoothly when you combine countries.
additionally, read the documentations. having the ability to combine countries would mean this feature would kill another criteria of the existing game, such as rebellions when you own many countries. not sure if gm wants that, because the formula/equation for rebellions is directly proportional to the number of countries you own times a pick from the air constant and inversely proportional to the welfare index of your countries; note that this welfare index has a max value too.
therefore, this rebellion equation is similar to the gm's proposed new calculations for raw materials that so many players are not happy with.
these features are designed to make sure your don't become too good playing this game. they are design to challenge you, that you will not ever win because the parameters of the equation is against you.
please do so reading on the documentations, they have done extremely well with the documentations. but you cannot be good by reading these docs, you can only learn about the hidden things from the vets in this game. and there are not many left either.
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 12:15 am |
The new version I have works with the current rebellion system too. Rebellions simply happen in regions instead of countries, and protectorate countries can still have rebellions. Anything else to throw at me?
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 12:25 am |
I say this should be added, but it should cost more, and free players can own 3 countries, not 2, and can annex one country, thus using the 2 of the three, meaning to play up to add more.
The annexation thing was my idea, but okay. The countries should be adjacent, because the map of the monster would be giant. But I guess you said that there could be individual states/provinces/territories, etc.
And there could be an empire War Index, till you conquer the whole thing.
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 12:55 am |
I don't remember you bringing up the annexation Idea, but either way.
In the real world countries are broken into regions/provinces/states/territories and when someone takes the main city of a region you essencially have that region now and not the whole country. If America attack Canada and came to my province and took Fredericton then they'd have Fredericton's main area and would essentially cut off the rest of the province.
As for the countries being adjacent that is in the main idea, "If your main country is connected to a country by land and you invade this country you can annex it and then you can do the same to any country it's connected to (Metudela >> Vibressa). And then there is protectorate (the current way) where say Metudela wanted to take Pozana a country that has another country between it and Metudela, if Metudela invades and conquers than unless I have the other country annexed I can only make Pozana a protectorate."
Do you guys even fully read the main idea?
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 01:56 am |
iM WITH THE iDEA AS LONG AS BORDERS STAY INTACT AND SO DO FLAGS AND PRESIDENTS PICTURES OF EACH UNITED COUNTRY AND HAVE THE OPTION TO MAKE THE CAPTURED COUNTRIES STATES OR PROVIDENCE... i WOULD LIKE THAT BUT FIGURE OUT A WAY TO KEEP OR GIVE THE OPTION TO KEEP EACH PRESIDENT PICTURE AND FLAG (PER - STATE/COUNTRY) JUST THE OPTION WOULD BE NICE
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 02:04 am |
1.) Turn of caps lock or learn to let go of shift man.
2.) A country has one ruler not a dozen, if the conquered country is a protectorate it could keep it's flag and president but if annexed then no.
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 02:15 am |
no annexation just conversion Ive stated under which circumstances I would be comfortable with the change nothing more
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 02:32 am |
conversion? No annexation gets rid of the idea entirely.
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 02:33 am |
poll is still 9/9
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 12:10 pm |
Now that i'm game level 6 I need to take a country to get level 7, I wish I could buy Vibressa and annex it..... but I guess i'll just have to buy it and keep it as a protectorate.
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 12:49 pm |
darn, someone controls it :'( time to change my entire wiki around. Republic of Mollada here I come.
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 04:04 pm |
My idea never said the countries should merge together, they should keep separate like they are now. I was talking about having control over the other players, just like vassals were in medieval times, and being a puppet state is no different.
Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan today, and I feel here in the UK our government answers to the USA in every move they make. I mean they even have military bases on our soil, probularly to protect us from the other superpowers like Russia or China if the truth was known.
However there would be an advantage on this game of being a puppet state to someone else, is that you would never be attacked, just like secured mode.
And the advantage of being an independent state is that you can attack other independent players. Just like having no war protection at all.
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 07:25 pm |
Also talking about the British Empire Ian, many parts of the empire such as India etc. were ruled through the local rulers there, rather than the british born ones.
The thing what i'm trying to say, is that I think in this game we can have people ruled over or protected by others which would make the game very interesting. I reckon if this happened, 80% of all players would be puppet leaders to the few powerful independent players that would act like colonial empires.
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 10:07 pm |
That is why the title is "REVAMPED AND REDONE" because it is a revamped version of yours without that part. I like my revamped idea better. I think being owned by another player would be annoying.
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 11:24 pm |
I suppose it would be annoying, especially when they didn't wish to be owned by that player, and many players would most likely leave this game because of it.
But my idea though, is that you WILL NOT be owned by that player in the classical sense of the word. My main idea is for anyone to seek protection with a very powerful player which will act like a "secured mode" for you. That's all there is to it.
For how the way secured mode is now, who is protecting me exactly?
However your idea of annexing countries is good, but similar to the merging countries idea which has been suggested many times before.
| Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - 11:50 pm |
i'm sure many players have suggested this concept well before you and me, if not then maybe they were not thinking of the big picture.
when i first started, i thought this game was model after america, because it even stated that each country is about the size of an american state. therefore, i turn warlord and conquer some countries. i found out, i cannot combine them together. that did kill my happiness then.
my concept then was so that a country could be much better manage as one, rather than many. and that this too would make sense to call "state corporations" as state corps and "national corporations" as national corps.
the existing rebellion equation is still design to not make your empire/country has peace. it is a barbaric concept. this equation needs to be that if your welfare index exceed say 100 then you will not have any rebellion, but if your welfare index is below this perfect "100" then the chance of rebellions is directly proportional.
the current rebellion equation = (50 x number of countries)/welfare index
i would like to know where that constant 50 comes from too. vets tell me that max wi = 139?
therfore if you got say 100 countries at max wi, then reb = (50 x 100)/139 = 35.97%
even if you have 1 country, you still have 0.4% chance of rebellion in your country?
my new rebellion equation = (100 - wi)/100
if you're an awesome president at max wi = 139, then
your chance of rebellion = (100 - 139)/100 = -0.39%
but if you're a bad president at say wi = 50,
then your chance of rebellions = (100 - 50)/100 = 50%
this new equation would be whether you have one country or 100 countries, does not matter because wi is per country.
| Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 07:39 pm |
I've noticed rebellions always seem to do damage to your infrastructure in your country as I had too many countries, many months back and always had them quite frequently because of the low welfare indexes.
The question I want to ask you is, do you think if rebellions drag on for too long they should take up arms in the form of enemy military units on your country map for us to deal with?
| Thursday, October 3, 2013 - 10:34 pm |
i have always thought that rebellions are just for you as a president to pay attention to how you are treating your population. it should not get to the point that you will have a civil war in your country.
if you're a good president, that keeps all your indexes up to standard then there should be no rebellion.
i'm not in agreement with how this game has a rebellion formula that increase as you increase the number of countries you own, it seems to be a design obstacle to just cost you more money, without much relationship to how you are doing as a president because it doesn't care how well your welfare index is.
in the current equation, if you have max wi 139 and 1000 countries, then your rebellions are 360% so that's so high throughout your empire then.
this is a design ceiling for being too good in this game?