Naam
-
Posts
73 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Naam
-
-
I wonder if you could make nuclear weapons so polticially unviable that only the most arrogant (or defeated) nations would use them, like how I'd consider it in RL - i.e. when you launch a nuke at some they take a lot of dmg but the entire world loses some amount of people in the fallout. So we all resent it. Not some silly "global radiation" but actual dmg every nation takes, albiet a small degree. And we'd get a message that says how caused the damage.
But that might prove to be extremely unappealing to many and if we are all effected then it really doesn't matter.
If we really want there to be a taboo about nukes, rather than them just being another type of missile being thrown around like all the time, I think this is the only way to achieve it. It could be limited to a continent rather than the entire globe, but unless they seriously affect a lot of nations other than just the target there ain't gonna be no taboo about them IMO. Obviously (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)'s global radiation level has totally failed at keeping a taboo about nukes, so the damage should be orders of magnitude more than just a minor environment hit.
-
kewl!
-
This suggestion fits nicely with my suggestion about nukes in them Military Units Concepts thread: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/272-military-unit-concepts/?p=2482
-
WMDs are not so much an actual weapon of war as they are a deterrent. It shouldn't be wise or in any way beneficial to exchange nukes. The purpose of a nuke is to make another state aware that if they use their nukes, they will pay a price, or as a last resort when already beaten conventionally. And as has been mentioned before, being nuclear armed should be a very exclusive club.
Such a deterrent is much less effective though when there are just pixels at stake rather than actual lives. I would be okay with nukes not being part of the war system.
If they are though, I would suggest that rather then belonging to nations they belong to alliances, i.e. only owner and heirs can launch them. It should take an upper tier alliance at least half a year justbe to get one nuke, all the while having to assign a rather painful amount of resources to the project. It should also be public information that they are working on a nuke and how far along they are to get one. Other alliances can then respond with embargos and/or attacks to try and prevent them from completing the nuke, or they could try and get one of their own, i.e. like an arms race.
Holy crap.
If they're going to be that tough to get, you better be able to nuke a whole alliance at once...
Well yes, or possibly all their member in one continent. Be prepared to be nuked back though when you do.
-
WMDs are not so much an actual weapon of war as they are a deterrent. It shouldn't be wise or in any way beneficial to exchange nukes. The purpose of a nuke is to make another state aware that if they use their nukes, they will pay a price, or as a last resort when already beaten conventionally. And as has been mentioned before, being nuclear armed should be a very exclusive club.
Such a deterrent is much less effective though when there are just pixels at stake rather than actual lives. I would be okay with nukes not being part of the war system.
If they are though, I would suggest that rather then belonging to nations they belong to alliances, i.e. only owner and heirs can launch them. It should take an upper tier alliance at least half a year just to get one nuke, all the while having to assign a rather painful amount of resources to the project. It should also be public information that they are working on a nuke and how far along they are to get one. Other alliances can then respond with embargos and/or attacks to try and prevent them from completing the nuke, or they could try and get one of their own, i.e. like an arms race.
-
Bump
This thread needed a bumb? Really now?
Was it necessary to quote, and comment? Really was it essential for survival? (TIP: If you do not agree, or like something on a internet forums it's best not to comment on it; it will most likely start a argument.) Also what is a bumb?
It's a dumb bump. You know, like yours.
-
1
-
-
Tbh, I think wars should always be losses, but a successful war can make peacetime more profitable.
Part of the fun in playing these games is seeing your strategy and effort payoff when you win a battle, and a war. War should be damaging and not worthwhile to implement as a tool to strengthen nations by "raiding" weaker ones, but there should be some value in victory. Otherwise, what's the point?
I'm with Caladin on this one. War is a very costly affair in real life, even if you win, and so it should be in the game. The winner is the one that does the most damage to the other basically. I guess raiding resources could be a part of war but IMO the resources gained in this way should always be considerably less than the resources spent on the war. The 'spoils' of war, if any, should only come afterwards.
Wars can be fought for many reasons though. So what those spoils actually are will vary. I guess if the defender wins the spoils would usually come in the material form of reparations and/or the political form of a public display of strength. For the attacker it would depend on why they started the war in the first place. If they wanted to show dominance for political reasons, well they did. Mission accomplished. They could also have been after economic gains though. Suppose for instance that they specializes in uranium and some other alliance is putting large quantities of it on the market at very low prices. A war could either devastate their uranium producing nations, or if they surrender, force them to sell at cartel prices or stop selling at all.
What I'm trying to say here is: there is no need to implement much of any material benefits of winning into the war system as the benefits should mostly be political and, even if they are material, they should arrive afterwards via the economic/trade system.
-
tl;dr
nice flag though
-
Why settle for one Kingdom when you can have Seven?
Can I have fries with that?
-
I don't think it's wise to put basic military requirements too high up the list.. What's everyone gonna do early in the game? Nobody can go to war because everyone is too small to build barracks?
I guess one issue with this idea is that, hypothetically, say this gets implemented and the game is reset. Well, now we have small nations that rely on large ones to grow (through resource deals,) but we have no large nations. How do we resolve that without throwing out the whole system?
We'll just have to build up the hard way. Although Sheepy could also decide to give some sort of bonus to beta testers that return after the reset, to get them ahead a bit and by doing so have tiers earlier on than they would otherwise develop by themsleves.
-
Yeah true. I could see the idea of food spoilage, it just depends on how fast they spoil though, yah know? I think an AA should be able to stockpile a years worth of food, for instance, and have that food last a year before expiring. Maybe be able to refined food into canned food that lasts a lot longer but isn't as effective or reduces happiness (who wants to live on spam rations?)
Just depends on the code really. Mine is the easiest solution the issue proposed. Yours adds an interesting level of depth to gameplay that I think could be quite interesting, depending on how complex it is to put it into place.
I like this idea. You could have a factory that turns say 10 normal food into 6 canned food. The latter being exempt from spoiling.
-
Good post Mikey. I too have not much of a problem with new nations being aid bombed into lower mid tier. My concern is mainly with them being aid bombed into upper tier. You think it is not possible. I'm not so convinced of that. In (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) it would easily be possible if it were not for the aid caps. You're right though. It does depend on how much money upper tier nations make in relation to how much it costs for a small nation to build up to upper tier. If the profits of a nation have an optimum at some size, i.e. if they grow beyond that profits will decrease rather than increase, and if that optimum profit is orders of magnitude less than the cash needed to aid bomb someone into upper tier then I agree that it would not be that big of a problem. That's a lot of ifs though.
-
Kadin, with your line of reasoning this game (or any game really) is already ruined because you are restricted to 5 supermarkets and 3 banks etc. and because you are restricted to one improvement per 50 infra and because you pay a penalty for already having cities when buying a new one (same with infra and land), and because a disease penalty is subtracted from your population if your pop density is high and because you are restricted to 5 trade slots, oh and you are restricted to only have one nation. I can go on and on.
If you don't get that having all kinds of restrictions, penalties and bonuses that apply to everyone equally is just what makes this game what it is then there's no point in discussing game development with you. It seems as though you would just want a "game" where you can just get anything for free and do and have whatever you want. I wouldn't even call something like that a game frankly.
-
But... but... I like myself!
-
3
-
-
I understand the logistics. I just don't view it as having an upside. I see potential problems with sellin food on the market, given the unknown variable to the purchaser of the age of the food. Everyone can make food, so I doubt it would be a valuable commodity anyway, but for the purposes of the game, I don't see food spoilage as adding value. Not to mention, many canned and dry foods can last years.
Plus, if you had 1,000,000 food and you didn't like losing 100,000 every day, you could put like 999,999 food on the market at like $3k per ton so that it wouldn't "spoil" and then when you needed the food again you could just cancel the offer and get your food back unspoiled.
Simply adding food on the market to the amount of food stored when calculating the penalty would solve that. And if the amount of food stored falls below zero than automatically cancel all trades that offer food.
-
1
-
-
It's not about food production though. It's a penalty for keeping large piles of food in store. Sheepy's idea doesn't involve age as it is based merely on the size of the stockpile. That makes the implementation even simpler, although it would mean that someone that has just bought a large amount of food would be equally penalized as someone that has had that same amount for weeks.
My solution would differentiate between that (as per the suggestion in the OP). However, for simplicity I just assumed that food sold is the oldest in store, while food bought is of zero age, i.e. the food just miraculously rejuvenates when sold so there's no need to keep track of the age of specific packages of food, just the one variable per nation.
-
Simplicity yes. However it would be quite simple to implement this as follows.
1) Have a food_age variable for each nation (starts as 0).
2) If someone has food in store add 1 to their food_age each day at update.
3) When someone buys food or increases it through collecting reduce the food age as follows:
new food_age = food_age / (1 + food_added / food_stored)
4) When someone sells food or decreases it through collecting reduce the food age as follows:
new food_age = food_age * (1 - food_subtracted / food_stored)
5) At collection add food spoiled to the daily food consumption
food_spoiled = food_stored * C * food_age / (1 + C * food_age)
Where C is a coefficient that determines the rate at which food spoils, which could be made dependent on certain policies or improvements. The larger C, the quicker food spoils.
-
1
-
-
What are you on about, Emily? Why does it matter that the donor rather than the recipient must enter such a donation into the trade system? Makes sense to me. Also, don't you have some scheming and plotting to do in the Hamptons or something?
-
Good one. That would make upper tier more dependent on lower tier to feed their cities I think.
-
No one is saying that it is wrong to help your alliance mate.
This is merely about limiting the extent of such help so as to keep the game interesting for everyone. -
Sure the caps can be adjusted whenever admin deems it fit.
-
I think having a market as described in my previous post for trade and a separate system for aid (including favorable trades with allies) would basically do the trick as such a market system wouldn't lend itself for aid while you could limit the aid system with caps and a limited amount of aid slots.
-
-
Problem is, if you properly coordinate that 1 iron for $100 mil deal on IRC you could easily make almost entirely sure that it doesn't get hijacked by someone else. Therefore unlimited market = unlimited aid.
What could be done though is to have the market automatically match up the sellers and buyers such that if you offer $100 mil for 1 iron you would instead end up buying 1 iron from the cheapest seller at the time for whatever price they happened to have offered it. And if you offer 1 iron for $100 mil you just end up at the bottom of the sellers queue such that someone that wishes to buy your 1 iron must first buy all other iron that is being offered at the time for whatever price it is offered for.
Similarly, if you would offer 100k iron for $1 you would instead end up selling that iron to the highest bidding buyers at the time for whatever price they are bidding, while if you offer $1 for 100k iron you would end up at the bottom of the buyers queue such that someone that wishes to sell you that 100k iron would first have to sell to all the buyers that have an offer outstanding at the time for whatever price they are bidding.
-
2
-
Military Unit Concepts
in Suggestions Archive
Posted
Lol. Just because we won't start any doesn't mean we won't prepare for them or fight furiously in case we get attacked. Make no mistake about that. We don't call ourselves Green Protection Agency for nothing,