Continental Congress Idea

[Alex]

I was just thinking about ways to expand the "politics" aspect of the game. This is an idea that occured to me:

 

Let's group nations by continent. Each continent will have a "Continental Congress" composed of 5 members, which would be elected by the nations on that continent. They would have the power to post some sort of continental announcements that would be pushed out to all nations on the same continent, and also have the ability to impose trade sanctions on nations, alliances, or other continents. Any sort of sanction would require 3/5 approval of the members of the congress.

 

Elections would be held every 2 weeks perhaps. This would add another element to the game that wouldn't necessarily revolve around alliances, and would add a lot to the idea of "trade warfare". 

 

Feedback?

[BoxcarJim]

I like it. Would the nations be in congress by default or could you op-out of it, kind of like how the world assembly in nation states works?

[RagnarBuliwyf]

:Edit nvm.

I miss-read

Edited August 7, 2014 by RagnarBuliwyf

[Hereno]

This seems familiar...

 

...

 

Still, it might have potential, depending on how you go about doing it.

[George W. Bush]

I would say this would be cool, especially if there was a larger version that covered the entire world.

Also, I think that wars should be limited more to the surrounding area to one's nation, and maybe more regions than just the plain continents we have currently. I.E. Europe split into Western Europe, Central Europe, Mediterranean, Scandinavia, Balkans, etc.

[BoxcarJim]

This seems familiar...

 

...

 

Still, it might have potential, depending on how you go about doing it.

 

Yeah, it does but it does add more to make the game alittle more interesting.

 

 

I would say this would be cool, especially if there was a larger version that covered the entire world.

Also, I think that wars should be limited more to the surrounding area to one's nation, and maybe more regions than just the plain continents we have currently. I.E. Europe split into Western Europe, Central Europe, Mediterranean, Scandinavia, Balkans, etc.

 

I think limiting wars to the area surrounding a nation wouldn't work, the way everything is setup now there maybe a nation that is getting attacked and his alliance wouldn't be able to help him because he isnt in the same area as them, plus thats not how it works in the real world and would limit alot of game play.

[Nicholas II]

I really like this Idea, Sheepy.

 

. . .  a larger version that covered the entire world.

. . . and maybe more regions than just the plain continents we have currently. I.E. Europe split into Western Europe, Central Europe, Mediterranean, Scandinavia, Balkans, etc.

I also like what Vlad the Implier had to add as well (I cut out of the quote what I did not agree with)

 

To diversify what he said a bit:

- I believe regions should have their own councils/parliaments. I find this to be more applicable because continents can have multiple alliances within. So if one alliance in Europe wanted to embargo another that was also in Europe, they would have to embargo their own continent; thusly themselves.

- From these regional governments, delegates could be elected to move to a higher council/parliament of the continent as a whole. Which could have some sort of governing role of the many lesser governments. Even perhaps try to keep peace in their respective continents?

- From these continental councils/parliaments, delegates could again be elected to move to a higher status in the world council/parliament. This could act as a sort of United Nations.

 

- Important Note: This mechanic would make room for corruption (i.e. like career politicians). Users could make secret deals with other nations/alliances to be elected if they help whoever aids their election, but of course making campaign promises is a valid thing as well.

- - Perhaps you could limit terms; if user A served two consecutive terms, user B must serve at least one term before user A can be reelected.

- - Also to prevent corruption, you could make a prerequisite that in order to be elected to a higher government a user must serve ' x ' amount of terms in whatever current government. This would ensure that the users in whatever region or continent support user A and that user A is not just trying to ride to the top of government for power (because hopefully the users would have noticed that with their increases time spent under user A's jurisdiction.)

Edited August 8, 2014 by TsarNicholasII

[Vincent]

then why we do it on a larger scale, maybe we can have one assembly - 10 members - representing all the continents - prorated according to the number of nations in that continent - and this assembly can do exactly what you proposed except that it can slap sanctions on a particular nation, continent and alliance. ( sort of similar to United Nations Security Council )

[Dwynn]

*Cough* ripoff *cough*

 

But really, no. You're trying to force politics without letting the player base get any sort of politics established on their own. Why not let the player base grow and establish some politics. If it's something that you feel could spice things up later down the road then add it in. As for right now, it'd be a garbage addition.

[George W. Bush]

*Cough* ripoff *cough*

 

But really, no. You're trying to force politics without letting the player base get any sort of politics established on their own. Why not let the player base grow and establish some politics. If it's something that you feel could spice things up later down the road then add it in. As for right now, it'd be a garbage addition.

Oh.. oh yeah Nation-States...

[Cody K]

I'm not a fan of forcing politics into the game via its mechanics. As Malone said, unless it comes to the point where alliances are doing nothing, there is no point in it. Especially considering something like this would discourage the creation of new, smaller alliances. Those with the most members would own the congress. 

[Ayayay]

I'm only okay with this if no one has to listen to them, but at that point why even have them at all?

[Caillou]

I have to agree with Cody and Malone, I think that if the players are more politics oriented then they will immerse themselves into the political aspects of the game. Going off of what Cody said, the game is already at the point where there are the serious big alliances and smaller ones that typically go inactive or merge into the bigger ones.

[Atzuya]

Perhaps we can take a bit from NS' World Assembly here. Other than sanctioning and all that stuff, the Continental Congress should be able to grant its contributing members limited numbers of slight buffs from a long list of possible bonuses (So no two continental congress will have the same buffs). Of course, the CC members will have to vote on each bonuses or repeal previous ones.

 

Nations in that particular continent can opt out entirely from the Continental Congress' influences, but they won't get the CC buffs.

 

IMO the possible buffs should be things like:

 

 

+0.5% gross revenue

+2% farms output

+5% mines resources output

+5% Ground Attack strength

-5% less food consumed

-2% military upkeep

-2% cities cost

A nice icon in one's nation page.

 

 

[Shellhound]

Been done before in NS, idk about NS so I don't know how well it works there. (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) did it with colors, that never really panned out. But really, it's been done before and in comparable games it doesn't work, no one really uses it and I think after that new car smell wears off the same will happen here. I do like the idea of alliances being able to embargo other alliances though. I would def. love to see more economical development alliance-wise, only idea I can think of atm is sanctions but I'm sure I can think of more later.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

I would say let the politics mature a little bit before adding this.  Give the players 3-6 months to get going.

[Taureg]

Continents can't trump alliances.  Let's say I'm one of 5 African nations in my 30 member alliance.  If the CC decides it's going to boycott my alliance, which do you think has more influence over what I decide to to?  Am I going to go along with the CC and deny my alliance the goods I produce?  Players aren't going to go against their alliances.  Players drop out of the CC and eventually it unravels and becomes meaningless.

 

What is the game for the CC supposed to be?  What does a CC gain, what are they supposed to be working towards?  What's the purpose of the CC?  I don't understand just what the perceived roll of the CC is.  What makes it thrive and grow to a point where it can challenge an alliance?

 

I get it the goal is to introduce another layer of politics to the game and I'm 100% in favor of that.  Right now though I'm in the camp of letting things play out for awhile.  Sometime down the road, if the game isn't attracting new blood, I suspect the alliances will have found their comfort zone and the politics will be all played out.  Wars won't exist, alliances will all be tied up in agreements, raiding will only be allowed on small alliances and nonactives, and we'll be playing a city builder.  Then we do something to shake things up    In the meantime we put our thinking caps on try to come up with a creative way to do that.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Taureg

[Sailor Jerry]

We break into your regularly scheduled broadcast for this breaking news story.  The Head Coach of PigSkin has made the following declaration...."Either way....I'd like to officially announce that I am now the "Unofficial and Unrecogized", Sectratay-General of the inaugural, first Continental Congress of North America.  Thank you for your support".  We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast already in progress. 

[Reagan]

Let's give this game, and the players, some time to settle in. Politics will be slow in the early stages as we're busy trying to grow enough to create meaningful politics. It'll pick up though. I don't think we need this CC right now.

[Donald Sterling]

Election wise it should be like the Holy Roman Empire.  The top ten nations on each continent score wise are electors, and they vote on who they would like to be the leader.  People running for leader can try and bribe them for their vote or specialize their agenda to fit those electors views to win the vote.  This would implement a new reasons of why to go to war, and implement a form of corruption into the game making it more realistic.  

[Brooklyn666]

Interesting idea, but I can see it taking all of 5 minutes before it causes major conflicts of interests between alliances, and members of the same alliance on different continents.

I'm all for more politicking, but I don't think this is the way to do it.

[Don Juan]

Election wise it should be like the Holy Roman Empire.  The top ten nations on each continent score wise are electors, and they vote on who they would like to be the leader.  People running for leader can try and bribe them for their vote or specialize their agenda to fit those electors views to win the vote.  This would implement a new reasons of why to go to war, and implement a form of corruption into the game making it more realistic.  [/size]

What about if it was more of a Holy Roman Empire type setup, what about if a continental congress then had to elect people to a world congress, with the CC acting as electors for the WC.

 

It has the potential to be positively Byzantine.

[Alex]

Interesting idea, but I can see it taking all of 5 minutes before it causes major conflicts of interests between alliances, and members of the same alliance on different continents.

I'm all for more politicking, but I don't think this is the way to do it.

 

Conflicts of interest are a good thing - they create drama and politics. This is why you'd need a 3/5 major to approve any sort of "Embargo". A CC would be independent of alliance's as well, you wouldn't have to be in an alliance to get voted in, for example. I fully expect alliances to cooperate to get one (or more) of their members elected so that they have power, but you could simply have a union of "African" nations who lobbied to get one person elected, use them to perhaps get an embargo on another continent that, for example, might also have uranium to encourage African nations to trade locally.

 

There's a lot of possibilities and routes to go, here.

[Brooklyn666]

Conflicts of interest are a good thing - they create drama and politics. This is why you'd need a 3/5 major to approve any sort of "Embargo". A CC would be independent of alliance's as well, you wouldn't have to be in an alliance to get voted in, for example. I fully expect alliances to cooperate to get one (or more) of their members elected so that they have power, but you could simply have a union of "African" nations who lobbied to get one person elected, use them to perhaps get an embargo on another continent that, for example, might also have uranium to encourage African nations to trade locally.

 

There's a lot of possibilities and routes to go, here.

 

Yea, but like Tuareg said, when there is a conflict, who do you think I'm going to side with? My loyalty to my alliance trumps any trans-continental politics 100% of the time, and I'm pretty confident that would be the case for most everyone else.

 

Why continent based anyway? That seems arbitrary. In my eyes, it makes more sense to have it base on resource production. That way there could OPEC style cartels and trade organizations that are transcontinental.

 

Also, how do you see the actual in-game mechanic of the embargo working? That's the most interesting part, to me.

[Don Juan]

I like the idea of production cartels a lot.