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

Victory Conditions

Topics: Suggestions: Victory Conditions

James the Fair

Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - 09:42 pm Click here to edit this post
I thought of an idea of when you declare war upon a player, I think there should be a victory condition you can choose from for the war, other than just taking and conquering that players country. So when declaring war upon a player, you would be able to choose a victory condition for yourself. My idea could work like this.

Option 1: All weapons and ammo stockpiles in the enemies country are transferred over to the winner. (This is good option for those power hungry players who could get hold of piles of weapons and ammo, especially nuclear weapons in an instant, depending on the enemies stockpiles)

Option 2: Taking all the enemies country cash and general supplies, which will be transferred over to the winner. (This is a great option for those greedy players who could potentially get hold of a vast amount of cash all at once, depending on the enemies cash reserves)

Option 3: Force the enemies country to become a member of your federation for a certain amount of time, maybe for about 1 real month. (This is a good option for those expansionists who want to spread their influence by force across the planet)

Option 4: Transferring a certain percentage of the enemies population over to the winner, could be between 5% to 10%. (This is a good option for those who need a population boost for their country quickly)

Option 5: Conquer the country. I think this option should only be possible if the player has violated any agreements or broken any peace treaties from previous wars etc... (This option should only be available if the player has been proven troublesome to others or has been authorized by a UN resolution to attack and take over that players country)

James the Fair

Thursday, April 3, 2014 - 03:33 pm Click here to edit this post
With this idea for option 1, we would see players acting as arms dealers and war mongers.

Option 2 would see players act like pirates and smugglers because of its stealing and theft nature of this option.

With option 3, we would see a feudal like style way of playing with you acting like a lord over them and restricting their powers such as declaring war on other players. I'm guessing the former NLUO fed leader such as Hezekiah would have liked this and use this option openly in order to rule the world over others.

Option 4 is like capturing slaves from lightly defended countries or colonies, just like many were historically.

Finally with option 5 is like giving a rogue country many chances to redeem itself, or fails to live up to it's agreements or treaties. Examples of this are rogue countries such as North Korea or Iran.

This I would have thought, could bring a lot of excitement to the game of how the way wars are fought, and could even see players specializing their federations based on just one of these options alone.

James the Fair

Saturday, April 26, 2014 - 10:45 pm Click here to edit this post
I thought I bump this up in case anyone hasn't seen it. I can see some players seem to be more concerned about coming up with suggestions to get rid of Lenpeat rather than trying and discussing of how to improve this game.


Saturday, April 26, 2014 - 11:23 pm Click here to edit this post
This would be an interesting addition to the game. I wouldn't prefer it personally, but its a good idea.

The Why

Saturday, May 17, 2014 - 05:46 pm Click here to edit this post
i agree with this james however i think you should be able to do any number of these things and just pick and choose which ones.... and you should have some time to decide swell to allow for negotiations between parties

James the Fair

Wednesday, June 11, 2014 - 03:20 pm Click here to edit this post
Thanks for the comments so far and I agree that negotiations should be allowed in this idea too.

I wonder if I could a response from Andy on this, but I can't see it happening anyway.


Friday, June 13, 2014 - 03:10 pm Click here to edit this post
I like some of it.
already discussed here and we will think about options.

I am not sure this is THE solution. Partial wars were discussed before.

We do agree however, that the war game must become more active and removing the mortal danger might help. We think that player vs. player wars should become more mainstream while attacking fakes will be a beginners trial and error process, preparing them for the real thing.

James the Fair

Saturday, June 14, 2014 - 10:24 pm Click here to edit this post
Ah ha! Thanks for replying back Andy, I nearly had an heart attack when I saw your name here lol, I appreciate this a lot. I didn't expect a reply as fast as this, so 10 out of 10 for customer service here :)

If you can, please tell me which parts of the idea you like and which ones you do not. Thanks.....

Then I can start improving this idea again, so I could start posting some more ideas for you to read on this thread.

Even I know this idea is not going to be a solution though, I just thought I could post a few ideas so I can help you with the game. I generally like to think anyway and just keep out of pointless conversations that are currently thrown about on the general forums.

James the Fair

Sunday, June 22, 2014 - 05:59 pm Click here to edit this post

(already discussed here and we will think about options.)

If you mean the "partial wars" that was discussed many months ago, it could work along with some of my suggestions.

So long as the control I have over my country is not threatened if I ever lost a war, I could very well consider turning off secured mode for my country and take the risk of being attacked. Especially since I am a member of a good federation now :)


Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 02:19 pm Click here to edit this post
What is very good about the entire idea is that war will not be seen as potentially the end of the world.

The risc of total destruction should decline.
On the other hand, if the country has to give away nearly everything it has, then recovery will be harder than starting a new country.

This is what makes it harder to decide. Many details and then of course, implementation could become too complex.


Sunday, June 29, 2014 - 02:26 pm Click here to edit this post
Andy, provided there is sufficient population in the country and the infrastructure (schools, roads, hospitals) and private/public corporations remain intact... you could have the country transfer all (and I mean all) of it's cash and product assets to the conqueror without starting a new country being a better option than repairing the existing country. Even if it is hard to recover, it is immeasurably easier than starting from a clean population/infrastructure/corporate slate.

Heck, you could force the country to take a $2T loan (as an example) in addition to all that and transfer the cash to the conqueror and a developed country would still be worth holding onto.

Come to think of it, the option to take all cash and product assets combined with a forced reparation of $2T (where the defeated country takes a loan of $2T and transfers that cash along with all its positive assets) seems like it could deter the use of undeveloped countries in war.

As an option in addition to outright conquest and ending the war, it could be beneficial.


For the "vassal" option, it seems unnecessarily complicated for very little utility... sure, they are in your federation, but you can't force them to attack anyone or set up air defense.


As far as the outright conquest of the country, my personal opinion is that either it is permissible via game mechanics in ALL cases or NONE. Either outright conquest is acceptable for gameplay or it isn't. I strongly disagree that game mechanics should function in that manner. Rogue countries, as you say, should be rogue countries because they go against the prevailing culture that the players of the game choose... not because they pass or fail game engine requirements. It should not be the job of the game engine to say which players are villains and which are heroes.

Besides, those players that choose to be villains will ALREADY have to deal with a community of players ready to punish them... the last thing they need is the game engine itself being stacked against them. If there is no reward to villainous or aggressive behavior, there is no reason for it... and you lose that whole conflict between the villains and the majority of players who wouldn't engage in such behavior.

Add a Message