| Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 12:51 pm |
I believe this has been suggested before but can't recall so. I suggest an increase to the member limit of a fed, it honestly should be infinite so that players wishing to join a federation don't have the ability because the fed is full at twenty some members. There are games where the limit for members is infinite or in the hundreds. Enough small things lead to a big change.
| Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 09:53 pm |
i agree wholeheartedly...... it seems that the cap of 25 countries per fed really limits empires are they supposed to sacrifce feding their countries in order to play with other real people or vice versa? one of the main reason why im not premium i dont see much point in becoming an empire if i then need to make that decision.... maybe the limit could be based on player numbers rather then countries.... other similar games have the same concept.... limit based on number of players rather then countries or whatever
| Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 10:33 pm |
This has been solved by larger feds by forming branches. Typically one fed will be for communications, and each player will have one country in it, and then multiple feds will be formed, usually regional, that are for protection or battle.
In practice, it isn't that bad.
| Monday, November 25, 2013 - 06:16 am |
what if you have an empire with many smaller players 1-2 coutnries?
| Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - 12:10 am |
The feds are already too large as it is.
too many in a fed, will create blocks that are too large.
we will not reduce at this time but also not increase the number.
| Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - 07:33 pm |
noone knows what your talking about when you say blocks andy
| Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - 08:20 pm |
The word Andy meant to use was bloc. It is a large group of countries working together to accomplish the same objectives. An example is the old Eastern Bloc led by the former Soviet Union.
I agree with the GM on this one. The solution is given by Aries in his post above. My federation has done exactly that and by doing so our family of federations is considerably larger than 25 members.
| Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - 09:21 pm |
Than we can't all communicate at the same time and have to hold meetings in order to speak. These "blocs" are the purpose of federations, alliances, guilds, and unions. I require a better more real answer other than "to many people will be helping each other". That is a pretty stupid and under thought answer.
| Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - 09:24 pm |
I don't agree that multiple countries from one empire should inhabit a federation. it should be one country per empire in a fed.
| Thursday, November 28, 2013 - 12:39 am |
that would completely defeat the purpose of feds ian
thanks for clarification jack
Personally i think there should be a limit but its up to andy... if he wants to keep em small for some arbitrary reason thats his right
| Friday, November 29, 2013 - 02:35 am |
I think the federations need a bit of restructuring that's all, see what you think of my idea.
FEDERATION RESTRUCTURING IDEA
I have suggested an idea that could solve some problems within federations, and maybe even war levels should not apply at all if you are a leader or a member of a federation of where you wish to freely wage war against other players.
For LEADER COUNTRIES of a federation
As the leader country you will have centralized control over your members as you would decide of who you want to go to war against, instead of being dragged into a war by a member who started that war you did not want to be a part of.
* Declare war on other players who are leaders of other federations or are independent.
* Cannot leave or disband your federation if you have members in it.
* Protecting your members from other players declaring war against them.
* Cannot declare war on members of other federations as they protected from war being declared upon them, only the leaders of them can be declared upon.
For MEMBER COUNTRIES of a federation
As a member country you cannot decide of who you would like to declare war against as you are not the leader of the federation. However you are protected by your leader country from other players declaring war against you directly.
* Cannot declare war on other players at all. As it is the leader of the federation who should make that call.
* Other players cannot declare war on you, unless he declares war on your leader first, which in turn brings all of the member countries into it automatically.
| Friday, November 29, 2013 - 02:56 am |
An example of this is like Jack mentioned with the old Eastern European Bloc led by former Soviet Union. Which basically means that the former Soviet Union (USSR) would be the leader country in this game, while the old Eastern European Bloc would be its member countries.
| Sunday, December 1, 2013 - 01:37 am |
The idea of James its fine to me.
And I think Federations besides war issues, can be a source of share economic resources between countries; like a small Common market.
| Sunday, December 1, 2013 - 02:18 am |
I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with James idea for the following reason.
You basing your idea that the Fed leader controls ALL aspects of the fed.
What if your fed leader is AFK??? What happens if they leave because a family emergency?
If they leave your fed is completely stuck at a stand still and should something happen your screwed.
I think feds are fine as is overall. There's only a few things i would add but i don't think they need revision beside there limit.
| Monday, December 2, 2013 - 04:12 pm |
I believe that the fed leader should control most aspects of the fed as he is the LEADER of it, and if he did have control over his subjects, it would certainly stop member countries from going rogue from declaring war on others and dragging their fellow members into it.
It is true if your fed leader isn't active and has left you and a few others in a war with impossible odds for example, you are screwed. This is something I would need to work on more, but if the game made a rule of never to lose your last country in a war, this wouldn't be that much of an issue, only the war damage.
I do think federations should have more options though, especially for a leader.
| Monday, December 2, 2013 - 05:29 pm |
I suppose it is all about how you want your fed to run and that is something you can set up in your separate fed guidelines. But we all don't agree the Fed Chairman becomes the supreme leader of our federation. Suppose he goes rogue and drags your fed into an ill advised war? In our federations all of our countries can still make their own independent decisions about their countries. In our federations the Chairman is the elected leader of the federation along with the elected ministers and they have powers delegated to them by our guidelines. We also have a standing order about who assumes command if the Chairman is not available. But each president has full power to operate his country as he sees fit including going to war. We value the sovereignty of our countries. We have provisions in the fed guidelines to deal with any rogue actions. The federations are fine as they are now.