Simcountry is a multiplayer Internet game in which you are the president, commander in chief, and industrial leader. You have to make the tough decisions about cutting or raising taxes, how to allocate the federal budget, what kind of infrastructure you want, etc..
  Enter the Game


Topics: Suggestions: MAD SUGGESTION

James the Fair

Thursday, March 6, 2014 - 09:55 pm Click here to edit this post
I am keeping this short and simple as possible.

I think we should only be able to own only 1 country in this game at all times.

You cannot conquer C3 countries anymore, but can attack them in order to receive SC$ cash for raiding at the end of the war, depending on your war level.

I think we should not have slave countries anymore as I feel each country in the game should be run by each individual person.

When conquering another player, that player still retains control of that country and becomes a protectorate for your empire, which is kind of like having a slave country except with someone else running it.

If youre a protectorate, you cannot declare war or conquer another player except for your protector, if you wish to fight for your independence from that player.

Any suggestions? thoughts? or game effects of this mad idea?

john whelahan

Friday, March 7, 2014 - 02:04 am Click here to edit this post
if we merged all the planets together into one then yes. as there are to few active on each individual planet for this to be of any worth


Saturday, March 8, 2014 - 07:55 pm Click here to edit this post
It means that secured mode will not exist and all your assets will be gone if you are defeated in war.

Nobody will make an effort to build assets under such conditions.
there are other problems too.

The idea of leaving the country in the hands of the president is discuused in the past.
it could be an option.

James the Fair

Sunday, March 9, 2014 - 02:38 am Click here to edit this post
So what you are saying about leaving the country in the hands of the president is that after a player is defeated in war, they can still get to keep control of their country? If that is so, it could well have kept more players playing this game.

However in terms of assets, a few things would have to change in how the way wars are won and fought. Such as making certain targets like state corporations undestroyable, like how the way the CEO corporations are. At least that way those assets would be protected from war, especially since they cost a lot of cash to build or rebuild those corps.

To make up for this loss, war points would be increased on cities, population and especially military bases, war points should also be scored on targets such as military units as well.

Also if somebody wins a war against another player, none of the defeated players game cash should be took as an award which will also protect that asset for that player as well, so the only unprotected assets would be mainly your population, and weapons/ammo you have in your military units or garrisons.

Yes it does mean there will be no secured mode, but instead war level 0 would act as your secured mode, especially for those who wish to keep out of wars and run a peaceful country in the game, which I understand, which also means they should not be able to assist in defence for anybody while at this level.

John, I thought of that suggestion once of merging all the planets into one a while ago but never published the idea on here. I would have thought it could have worked, and more realistic too. Unless theres a technical reason why they cannot.


Sunday, March 9, 2014 - 05:41 am Click here to edit this post
James, the merger thing might be seen as unfair or harder to do.
How about a button, that upon wining a war you can click transfer money and goods automatically and let them keep the country or can occupy. If you choose this option you and the other country allows for a waver of debt transfer to winner. immediate cash and goods only; loans stay. It is assumed they are to rehab their country and try again. If the losing country does not accept, they lose the country to the Game.

This might even be an option to open up post war negotiations, such as you leave it alone and I give you 1T,3T,5T, ect... as a trade off. Maybe even allow for a 10-20-30 GY peace treaty since the game goes faster now.

Of course it won't eliminate the war levels, but just some practical post war changes and maybe something that is more negotiable. even with check boxes, 50% of weapons, ammo, and goods and this much cash, or this many people for peace and retention of country. Even if it is either before or after war ends it might make diplomacy a added value to the game for some while letting us make up what we think is best to end conflict and have some simple options. It would have to give a 3-6 game month delay in taking the country, so the game would have to freeze the account and any movements the president can do, because the outcome could end as take country in a failed resolution of the war between two players.

James the Fair

Monday, March 10, 2014 - 09:50 pm Click here to edit this post
I do like your post war negotiations idea such as where you will be able to transfer money, goods, weapons and ammo over automatically after the war if you did not wish to occupy or annex that player and let the loser keep the country free from you making it into a slave country, but this would take a lot of the losing players assets away from their country like Andy said. If this is somehow to work, I would say the losing player is to be protected by the game for a quite a long period of maybe 1 REAL month or even 2 REAL months in order for the player to gain a lot of the assets back.

I do not think the defeated player should lose the country to the game if no agreement is reached, or to another player. But like my idea says at the top, is to own only 1 country in this game at all times. Which means you cannot even own a second country for yourself anymore, so occupying the country in that sense would not be possible.

I would however, rather see another player when defeated, have the possibility to be annexed to the winning player and become a slave country to that player if no agreement is reached.

Or simply for the winning player to annex the defeated player immediately without no agreements at all. Which would be another alternative option for the player.

Also, another way to build an empire peacefully, is by asking other players to join you and would then become your slaves, the benefit of them becoming your slaves is that they will be protected from war from other players, but cannot declare war on other players except for their protector. However for on the other hand for you as their protector, you could ask them for their air defence forces for example to protect your country like how federations work now in times of war or even maybe tax them for your protection.

All kinds of negotiations could be done, I agree such options should exist for a game such as this one, there definitely needs to be more diplomacy here. The setup of this would be similar to how the way the worker exchanges are set up for you to decide of whether to accept or decline the agreement.

My idea is not to eliminate war levels anymore, but to make war level 0 a safe level for anybody to play an entirely peaceful game all on their own, unless they wish to go up a war level, they would then be part of the war game.

Add a Message