Make Regions for movement

[Shane Pizza]

Divide the map into regions that cost movement points. 

in order to go to war, you have to be able to reach a player within a certain number of moves. Or in order to trade, you must be within trading distance. 

Then allow players to own these regions.  

ownership of a region gives one bonus. The ability to deny other players access in or out of the region.

While the owner of a region, anyone can attack you, but you can only attack people in your war range. 

to become the owner of a region just go to war. The war type would be "Regional Hegemony."

If a small nation wishes to simply get out to trade with another nation but is blocked, have a war type called, "Resist the Blockade." one successful attack allows the player to perform their desired action.

Below is a simple map of the world (I am by no means an artist).  most of the borders follow mountain ranges or rivers. It also includes the ocean in the territories in case people are trying to be Atlantis. 4 military moves should be enough to get anywhere on the map without blocks. 5 would allow for some wiggles room. I think between 6-8 moves should be a good number for trading. 

Or have a grid with squares as regions. That might be simpler but still is the same idea.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Shane Pizza

[pr23]

no that would be bad because we can’t access world other we will be only available to trade resources that we can produce for a much cheaper cost

[B0SS]

The thing is, this thing would make the game wayyy too complicated. 

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

Yes, excellent idea, lets make even less incentive for wars to happen.

/s

[Shane Pizza]

18 hours ago, pr23 said:

no that would be bad because we can’t access world other we will be only available to trade resources that we can produce for a much cheaper cost

I believe you are saying it would limit trade. Correct? 

I disagree though. If you give enough movement points for trade. (7 or 8?) it would take a lot of the world teaming up on a player to stop them from trading. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Shane Pizza
Misspelled word

[Shane Pizza]

8 hours ago, Komiko said:

Yes, excellent idea, lets make even less incentive for wars to happen.

/s

Wars would happen more often. 

The reason no one goes to war now, is because the only reason you would go to war is to beat the **** out of another team amd tear down their infra. By adding in land that could possibly split alliances in half. You would add another less destructive reason to fight. 

The way to make wars less destructive is to give the people things to fight over that are not a part of their city. 

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

1 minute ago, Shane Pizza said:

Wars would happen more often. 

The reason no one goes to war now, is because the only reason you would go to war is to beat the **** out of another team amd tear down their infra. By adding in land that could possibly split alliances in half. You would add another less destructive reason to fight. 

The way to make wars less destructive is to give the people things to fight over that are not a part of their city. 

>wars
>less destructive
Do you even know what a war is, game or otherwise?

Here's the optimistic vision of what happens here. Temporary chaos as alliances unify their land, and then stagnation even greater than before.

This ignoring the idiotic implications for trading, this game is based in the modern world. Anyone can trade with anyone anywhere regardless of distance. Why would literally anybody want that.

[Shane Pizza]

5 minutes ago, Komiko said:

>wars
>less destructive
Do you even know what a war is, game or otherwise?

Here's the optimistic vision of what happens here. Temporary chaos as alliances unify their land, and then stagnation even greater than before.

This ignoring the idiotic implications for trading, this game is based in the modern world. Anyone can trade with anyone anywhere regardless of distance. Why would literally anybody want that.

Lets start with what you say would be the biggest problem. Stagnation. Why do you think the world would become so stagnate? Articulate your agrument please so I can understand exactly what you mean and possibly think of a way to solve it.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Lets talk about why this really wont happen.  It would completely change the game, and be a giant pain to program.

[WISD0MTREE]

On 8/27/2018 at 2:02 PM, Shane Pizza said:

Divide the map into regions that cost movement points. 

-snip-

This was considered multiple times throughout Alpha/Beta. Basically Sheepy thought it would be too complicated from a code standpoint. (Here's a thread from 2014 about something similar with maps.) 

Unrelated: I still think we should change the name of tank factory. 

6 hours ago, Shane Pizza said:

I believe you are saying it would limit trade. Correct? 

 I disagree though. If you give enough movement points for trade. (7 or 8?) it would take a lot of the world teaming up on a player to stop them from trading. 

I'm fairly sure he's saying it would limit trade for resources you don't produce. For example, Asia makes oil, iron, and uranium. Australia makes bauxite. In an extreme example, it could possibly cause a situation where a nation in Asia wouldn't be able to buy bauxite at all because they're too far from Australia. With the 7 or 8 idea, I don't believe there is a spot where a nation can't trade with (granted this is from me looking at it from my nation's position for ~2 minutes). That would then make the trade idea pointless. 

[Azaghul]

I don't think this specific idea is workable but I do think it's worth brainstorming ways that continents could matter for more than just resource production.

For example: nations on the same continent start with 2 extra MAPs in wars against each other.  Different continent but same hemisphere has no change.  Nations on different hemispheres start with 2 less MAPs.

[Joel James]

Why is it harder to move things the closer you are to the equator?