the number in a fed isn't that important, just so long as a fed can't recruit most of the planets power base, thats the thing i'm really going after. and get players to keep their countries more together, and locally, as opposed to a handful of players dominating a world.
the 4 number i grabbed, can from another game. when 600 people would sign up for a game, a 72 hour ticker would start, then it was a free for all, with max 4 players per fed, when 60 players where left standing, a 72 hour ticker would start, then the game would end. just surviving was an accomplishment, let alone winning, or high rank!
sim country doesn't need to be that cutthroat, but if all the power is in the same fed, it doesn't really offer allot of growth for lesser feds. often, when a lesser fed gets far enough along to be "respectable," they get clobbered. i'm plenty guilty of this, i once had a very respectable fed, literall
J
James the Fair
All worlds
I think there should be 2 things that slave countries cannot do which are......
Cannot create or join federations, only the leader countries should decide that while the slave countries automatically become a part of whichever fed the leader country decides on, just like you mentioned here.
Cannot create its own armies as I think all the armed forces should be all controlled and paid for by the leader country, which could mean generally smaller armies for players in the game since they likely can't afford their leader country to maintain and pay the expense for such huge armies.
But the question is, how would this affect the gameplay elsewhere? would it be a good thing or a bad thing?
@josias: I understand, I think with the open ended side of federations it would not matter much size of federation. You can forge allies and link together the feds of 4 making the same effect. It would make you have to work harder to do so, right?
I think they should add some basic diplomatic in game options to make these official and have an actual in game effect. ie peace treaties, SC aid, and war/defense treaties. Of course without closing off the open political side of the federation. I also think it might be nice for individual countries/empires to have some expanded options in game. It would be nice to be able to program in some ally options, like 25% defense or a war treaty option. It would be nice to find a way to have in game functions that would be more productive.
If they added some functions like the SC council has, plus auto disaster teams from the fed level, and maybe defense it would allow for more solid automatic time saving h
I think there needs to be an actual reason for people to join federations. At present, there are no incentives except for defence, which can be handled alone if one doesn't go up in war levels or simply keeps their arses out of trouble.
I think Feds should begin trying to promote themselves as beneficial for member nations for a variety of reasons. Something like, "if you join our fed, my exclusive enterprise will build in all your nations." Players would absolutely love that, especially new ones.
I also think older players need to start using Feds in order to retain beginners and help them through the learning curve of SimCountry, and this could be done easily through an effective Federation.
S
SuperSoldierRCP
All worlds
I agree with the player idea over country.
I think feds should be built to protect 8-10 players per fed, all nations in the empire would be protected.
Also heres a CRAZY idea
When in a fed if a player signs the war dec, they will auto dec anyone reguardless of level.
-If i sign the war dec and my buddy at level 3 gets attacked, I at 11 should be able to assist him.
-If i get decced at 11 and my buddy at 3 wants to help, HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
I vote that the current limits stay in place to protect noobs from the higher players, but at the same time we need to loosen the requirements. If the Requirements where removed for DEFENSIVE auto decs only it would go along way to helping feds.
J
James the Fair
All worlds
I also definitely agree that it should be player based rather than country based, so if one of your countries is declared on, the rest of them should join in too which would make much better sense.
drys0013, in terms of making federations more viable or even exiting, we could have a few different types of feds such as this idea below.
Alliance
An alliance would work in the same way it does now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_security#Collective_defense
Protectorate status
With this option, this will work very similar to how an alliance works, except declaring war on someone would have to be approved by your protector first (or the chairman of the federation), before declaring war on that player.
This could work by you selecting a country to declare war on like you would do normally, except you would have wait for your declarati
Agree with the idea that every country a player has must be in the same fed. I have noticed some players have countries in several different feds which I find to be a huge conflict of interest. If two players from these feds go to war who are you going to support if you as a player have a country in each fed? or will you just stand aside and watch? are you really apart of that fed and their interests or are you only serving your own by joining as many feds as possible hoping no-one will go to war with you?