Continental Congress Idea

[Dark Specter]

How about we go with this continental congress idea and to counter it allow players to set up organizations that will go against the congress therefore giving the CC a purpose, like if the CC sanction all of Africa then people can come together to establish a black market and sell products to the African nations for high prices while at the same time trying to avoid the wrath of the CC.

 

And to add on to this maybe update the market so that when we sell our resources we can choose which continent we want to sell to and all the nations that are on that continent to buy those products. So if I choose to sell uranium to africa I can go to the market create an offer set the price and choose Africa as the continent I want to sell to and the nations in Africa can buy by resources.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Talisman

[Alex]

An embargo would be pretty straight forward, your offers wouldn't appear on the global market to whoever you embargoed and they wouldn't see your offers. There wouldn't be a restriction on private trades, though, since those are more deliberate and obviously no embargo is 100% effective. If your CC embargoed a nation or alliance then you could still trade with them, so long as you deliberately went to their nation and sent them a trade offer, directly.

 

I like the idea of "resource cartels" like OPEC, and that's why I thought a continental assembly would work well, it's all nations with the same resource production ability.

[Shellhound]

[17:06] <Shellhound> I'd like it if alliances could embargo other alliances. Not allow anyone in their alliance to trade with xx alliance or xx nation and whenever somebody is embargoed it lists it on their nation page and if an alliance is embargoed it says so on their alliance page that way other people know about it.

 

I like this idea (Hence why I came up with it ) the power needs to be within each individual alliance imo, not sorted out by colors or continents or w.e

 

Although I really love the idea about resource cartels, I think that's something that should be left up to the players to create and organize. Give it time and it will happen.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Shellhound

[Alex]

[17:06] <Shellhound> I'd like it if alliances could embargo other alliances. Not allow anyone in their alliance to trade with xx alliance or xx nation and whenever somebody is embargoed it lists it on their nation page and if an alliance is embargoed it says so on their alliance page that way other people know about it.

 

I like this idea (Hence why I came up with it ) the power needs to be within each individual alliance imo, not sorted out by colors or continents or w.e

 

Although I really love the idea about resource cartels, I think that's something that should be left up to the players to create and organize. Give it time and it will happen.

 

I'd like to add this ability for alliances separately, as well.

[Grillick]

I've been pushing for embargoes for months. I don't think alliances should have the mechanism for creating them, though. They should be implemented on the individual nation level. An alliance should be an applicable target for an embargo, but it shouldn't be able to bind its members without them taking deliberate action.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Grillick

[Kerbollo]

1. Continental Congress convenes.

2. Embargo on a continent.

3. Those nations whose alliance HQ is in that continent gets angry.

4. Those nations break away.

5. (Possible) Those nations gets hostile.

6. (Possible) Continent(al) (Civil) War.

 

Seriously, it could get that bad. If an alliance member is deeply devoted to its alliance it would do anything to make sure the continent where its alliance's HQ is don't get embargoed, and sometimes that nation takes extreme measure, possibly to group up and start a war on the nation's continent.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Kerbollo

[Alex]

I've been pushing for embargoes for months. I don't think alliances should have the mechanism for creating them, though. They should be implemented on the individual nation level. An alliance should be an applicable target for an embargo, but it shouldn't be able to bind its members without them taking deliberate action.

 

Nations will have the ability to embargo nations themselves also, but like I said it doesn't prevent all trade just the easy, global market trade. So your alliance could embargo a nation, and you would still be able to trade with them, you just wouldn't accidentally do it on the global market. It would take a deliberate, direct trade offer to their nation.

 

1. Continental Congress convenes.

2. Embargo on a continent.

3. Those nations whose alliance HQ is in that continent gets angry.

4. Those nations break away.

5. (Possible) Those nations gets hostile.

6. (Possible) Continent(al) (Civil) War.

 

Seriously, it could get that bad. If an alliance member is deeply devoted to its alliance it would do anything to make sure the continent where its alliance's HQ is don't get embargoed, and sometimes that nation takes extreme measure, possibly to group up and start a war on the nation's continent.

 

You say that like it's a bad thing, to me it sounds like a good thing. More politics, more war, more economics.

[Shellhound]

Preach, Sheepy.

[Grillick]

Nations will have the ability to embargo nations themselves also, but like I said it doesn't prevent all trade just the easy, global market trade. So your alliance could embargo a nation, and you would still be able to trade with them, you just wouldn't accidentally do it on the global market. It would take a deliberate, direct trade offer to their nation.

Why not let alliances cause their members to launch attacks against other nations, too? If they have complete control over economic warfare, why not have it over traditional warfare also? Embargoes are not a simple matter like taxation. The results of an embargo are not as readily visible (especially if global trade offers are completely hidden, rather than being visible and unable to be accepted) as the bank tax, so nations who disagree with the embargo don't have the same chance to simply leave the alliance if it is oppressive.

 

Other than "we don't trust the membership to comply," I see no legitimate reason to give alliance leadership the ability to alter the game mechanics for every member of the alliance. What does it add to the game, other than the convenience of the leadership not needing to effectively coordinate with their members?

[Ayayay]

-snip-

It doesn't require every single country in the UN to agree to a blockade to get one past on a nation. Just a majority and the all the members of the Permanent Security Council. Also no nation in an alliance has to obey the blockade, they can use personal offers as previously mentioned or they can leave the alliance.

Edited August 11, 2014 by underlordgc

[Grillick]

It doesn't require every single country in the UN to agree to a blockade to get one past on a nation. Just a majority and the all the members of the Permanent Security Council. Also no nation in an alliance has to obey the blockade, they can use personal offers as previously mentioned or they can leave the alliance.

You clearly don't understand how the UN (and other types of international law) work in the real world. The UN can impose sanctions on, for instance, Iran, but those sanctions are meaningless unless individual nations take affirmative steps to implement them. In order to not comply with UN sanctions against Iran, its neighbor Afghanistan needs only to not instruct its border patrol officials to enforce the blockade. It doesn't need to actively seek out Iranian trade partners: its failure to enforce the limitation will cause those trade partners to find them.

 

There doesn't even seem to be any reason for you to have quoted me in your reply, since nothing you said is actually responsive to anything I said. I never said that allowing alliances to enact their own blockades is unrealistic (although it is). I never said there was no way for a nation to avoid a blockade imposed by its alliance (there clearly are, as you pointed out). All I said was that a logical extension of that grant of power would be allowing the alliance to actually put its members into combat, and that there was no reason other than (it's more convenient) for having alliance leaders have that power. You didn't respond to either of those points.

[Ayayay]

You clearly don't understand how the UN (and other types of international law) work in the real world. The UN can impose sanctions on, for instance, Iran, but those sanctions are meaningless unless individual nations take affirmative steps to implement them. In order to not comply with UN sanctions against Iran, its neighbor Afghanistan needs only to not instruct its border patrol officials to enforce the blockade. It doesn't need to actively seek out Iranian trade partners: its failure to enforce the limitation will cause those trade partners to find them.

I'm saying that it doesn't require every nation to agree to it individually, as it would be with alliances. Afghanistan could vote "no" but the UN could pass it regardless, and in the context of the game Afghanistan would be doing private trades to get around it.

[WISD0MTREE]

Seriously, it could get that bad... possibly to group up and start a war on the nation's continent.

 

...it causes major conflicts of interests between alliances... I'm all for more politicking, but I don't think this is the way to do it.

 

Really guys. This is like playing World of Tanks and complaining about there being tanks. Aww, I don't like that the pool supply store has chlorine.

[Reagan]

 

Really guys. This is like playing World of Tanks and complaining about there being tanks. Aww, I don't like that the pool supply store has chlorine.

As much as you may not want it to be, "Politics" is still in the title.

[Dwynn]

I'm going to agree with Reagan on this one. It's politics & war, both.

 

But I don't agree that manufacturing politics via in-game mechanics is wise this early in the game. This is something that should be rolled out once some politics have been created by the player-base. In reality, this is simply going to end up being another game mechanic abused by alliances in power holding down alliance of smaller stature.

 

At this point Sheepy, it's almost like you're trying to come up with ideas to simply say you're adding things to the game. Things like these (and like it or not this and the trade union thing) are big changes that should have been rolled out before going live. Inevitably with something this big, there will be bugs (basing on previous code rollout), and when you get into things that involve trading etc, we've seen that exploits happen.

 

Whatever you do, be sure you code clean before rolling it out half-assed just to say you added something new.

[Shellhound]

I know people have been asking for a speedround, perhaps use it as a testing grounds as well? It'll reset every month anyways so bugs and exploits won't be a real problem.

[WISD0MTREE]

I'm going to agree with Reagan on this one. It's politics & war, both.

 

But I don't agree that manufacturing politics via in-game mechanics is wise this early in the game. This is something that should be rolled out once some politics have been created by the player-base. In reality, this is simply going to end up being another game mechanic abused by alliances in power holding down alliance of smaller stature.

 

At this point Sheepy, it's almost like you're trying to come up with ideas to simply say you're adding things to the game. Things like these (and like it or not this and the trade union thing) are big changes that should have been rolled out before going live. Inevitably with something this big, there will be bugs (basing on previous code rollout), and when you get into things that involve trading etc, we've seen that exploits happen.

 

Whatever you do, be sure you code clean before rolling it out half-assed just to say you added something new.

Yes, I get that. They are saying that the idea is a bad idea because it will cause wars. I'm pointing out that War is in the title.

 

As much as you may not want it to be, "Politics" is still in the title.

Yes, I get that. They are saying that the idea is a bad idea because it will cause wars. I'm pointing out that War is in the title. 

[Afya]

No offense, but is this game just going to end up as a copy of Cybernations?

[Alex]

No offense, but is this game just going to end up as a copy of Cybernations?

 

I'm not sure what warrants your question, (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) doesn't even have continents like we do, or an in-game economy. I think that Politics & War far exceeds CyberNations.

[Shellhound]

I'm not sure what warrants your question, (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) doesn't even have continents like we do, or an in-game economy. I think that Politics & War far exceeds CyberNations.

It does seem quite similar to team senate's however, whether that was intentional or not idk; but either way, no one game is completely unique, idea's overlap.