Popular Post Edward I Posted August 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 24, 2019 (edited) Problem There is little sense of place or geography in Politics & War. All interactions between nations and alliances are immediate and unhindered by any kind of simulated separation. Furthermore, there is little to do in Politics & War for the typical player besides grow a nation and fight wars with that nation. This proposal offers a modest, partial remedy to both problems by treating colors as abstract representations of geographic places and by creating in-game, supra-alliance political structures corresponding to each Color Trade Bloc. Together, these changes should allow a greater degree of political isolation among alliances and provide a peacetime activity in which all players can participate. Summary of the changes There are four main areas of proposed changes: 1. Changes to how nations and alliances choose and switch their colors 2. Color-based changes to war mechanics 3. Color-based changes to trade mechanics 4. Color senates and policies Formatting guide Bold text indicates a change Normal text indicates a description of a change Red text indicates a comment on game balance Blue text identifies existing code that can likely be reused or repurposed for ease of implementation Section 1: Color changes Hide contents Replace beige with “protected status” This will work exactly the same way as beige does, but nations will enjoy immunity from new war declarations without the game automatically changing their color Nations leaving protected status will not be placed on gray New nations will spawn on gray, not beige, but they will still enjoy the same number of turns of protection from raids These changes are necessary because the rest of the proposal would be extremely complicated without them Changing colors takes five days (60 turns) Nations in the process of changing colors have a countdown on their nation pages Reuse code for the beige countdown to implement this Nations may change their intended new color at any time, but the 5-day timer will reset each time they do The only exception to this rule is nations that have been inactive for fourteen days, which are immediately moved to gray (they will still take five days to move from gray to a different color) The timer will provide advance warning of organized color invasions and balance other proposed mechanics Alliance color automatically matches the color of a majority of its members Alliances without at least 50%+1 members on a single color will automatically have their color set to gray Gray alliances provide no income bonus to their member nations, no matter which color they're on Remove color trade bloc turn bonuses The industrial policies (see below) provide an alternate means of boosting nations’ incomes This mechanic discourages older, larger nations and established alliances from sharing a color with new nations, small nations, and micros, which is a bad dynamic New nations also tend to benefit less in absolute terms from the turn bonuses than larger nations because they are often placed on colors with already-low bonuses by the alliances they join Section 2: War changes Hide contents Add a second, automatic war type: intra-color vs. inter-color Wars between same-color nations are intra-color; wars between different-color nations are inter-color. This is assessed automatically at the start of each war and cannot change during a war. Attackers in inter-color wars start with one less MAP, regardless of their War Policy This diminishes the first strike advantage in the current war mechanics and makes it slightly easier for smaller groups of nations to defend against larger groups Radiation is calculated for color trading blocs, not continents Radiation will work the same way it currently does, but radiation indexes will be calculated for color trading blocs rather than continents Change the magnitude of nuclear radiation per nuke by 6/15 (six continents, fifteen colors) to keep the effect nuclear weapons the same on average Global radiation remains unchanged This makes nuclear weapons slightly more useful and slightly more strategic: rather than impacting a semi-random cross section of nations, they are likelier to primarily impact nations in the same political sphere Section 3: Trade and resource transfer changes Hide contents Trades can now be sent to shared markets among color trading blocs When creating a trade, the new options will be Global, Color, Alliance, and Personal All trades and resource transfers are either intra-color or inter-color Trades between same-color nations are intra-color; trades between different-color nations are inter-color. This is assessed automatically when a trade offer is completed The same is applied to resource transfers to and from alliance and color banks (see below) All inter-color trades and transfers cost $50 per unit to complete, assessed against the actor which complete the trade For trades, the nation that accepts pays the fee For bank deposits, the depositing nation pays the fee For bank withdrawals, the bank pays the fee The money used to pay the fee is immediately removed from the game when the corresponding trade or transfer is completed This is meant to simulate transport costs Inter-color trades and transfers are unaffected because similar fees would affect alliance taxes and centralized alliance economies To prevent coding and balance headaches, alliances no longer collect taxes from member nations that aren't on the same color as the alliance The trade UI will include transfer costs in the prices displayed The alliance bank UI will include a reminder about the transfer fee All inter-color trades and transfers take one day (12 turns) to complete Upon completion, traded or transferred resources are removed from the sending bank or nation These resources cannot be looted while in transit Blockaded nations cannot complete trades or transfers which require them to send money or resources Trades that would require a blockaded nation to send resources cannot be accepted by other nations After 12 complete turns, traded or transferred resources are deposited in the receiving nation If a nation is blockaded at the end of 12 complete turns, the resources are deposited at the start of the next turn the nation isn’t blockaded This effectively makes it harder to break blockades because blockading nations will have up to two hours to reestablish a blockade to prevent resources from entering a blockaded nation Transfers of money to and from banks are unaffected by the 12-turn timer, but will still be prevented by blockades Resources are no longer tied to continents Because radiation is no longer calculated by continent, there is no need to incentivize nations to distribute themselves evenly across continents Changing resources works exactly as changing location does now: new nations get one free change, and after that it costs a credit each time Available resource combinations remain unchanged Options for seasonal effects on food production: Remove seasons entirely Keep them paired with the same resources they are now (e.g. nations with formerly South American resources experience winter when nations with formerly North American resources experience summer) Randomly assign seven colors to the “Northern Hemisphere” and seven to the “Southern Hemisphere” and re-implement seasonal effects accordingly Consider removing Antarctica’s resource set since the nerfs to food production associated with it would no longer exist Changing location is now free and unrestricted Section 4: Color politics Hide contents In this section, an active nation will be defined as one not on gray and not in vacation mode. Note that nations less than five days old and nations more than fourteen days inactive will always be considered inactive because they will be on gray. The former in particular offsets some of the perverse incentives for making multi nations that these changes would create. New game interface for color trading blocs Add a section in the game’s sidebar for color trading blocs Following the link leads to a list of color trading blocs (this page currently) Additionally, create a page for each color trading bloc roughly based on the existing alliance pages A description editable by color senators (see below) Links to a list of nations on the color, a list of wars for nations on the color, a map of nations on the color, color announcements, the color bank, color laws, and color policies (see below) Repurpose alliance pages and their features to implement this Color banks Each color except gray has a bank that can store resources in the same way an alliance bank can as well as political power (see below) Resources and money can be transferred between color banks and alliance banks or nations in the same way they can be now Accumulated political power can be transferred as well, but only between color banks Transfers of political power have a cost of 100% (in other words, every time political power is sent between banks half of it disappears) This makes exploiting one color for the benefit of another less effective and prevents friendly colors from efficiently hiding or safeguarding one another’s accumulated political power Color banks are looted using the same calculation as alliance banks, but replacing alliance members with all nations on the color in the calculation Color banks are only looted at the conclusion of intra-color wars Alliance bank looting is unaffected by this change and still occurs during intra-color wars in addition to color bank looting Color senates Each color except gray elects a group of senators every 30 days Senators stay in office for 30 days and voting takes place continuously over the 30 days term to each new senate term This is the same mechanism that is currently used for voting on color trade bloc names Senate terms begin and end on the same day across all colors This prevents nations from “raiding” elections by having their votes count towards multiple senate elections in the same 30-day period If a senator leaves their color during their term, the senate seat passes to the first runner up in the most recent election, who fills the seat for the remainder of the term If there are no runners up, the seat remains unfilled for the remainder of the term Senators have a variety of powers, both unilaterally and as a group (see below) Senators are given control over their color’s page, bank and announcements This works in exactly the same way officer permissions for alliance pages, banks and announcements currently do Nations residing on a color will be able to reply to color announcements just as alliance members are currently able to reply to alliance announcements Voting mechanism Reuse existing code for color name voting for all types of voting Voting for senators Nations can use the same option-generating mechanic that already exists: typing a name into a box to cast their vote and allow others to cast their votes for the same thing (in this case, a specific nation) Repurpose the code for sending resources from an alliance bank to accomplish this Add an option to the edit menu allowing a player to disable votes being cast for their nation (enabled by default) Senators are elected by ranked plurality: the top X finishers (either 3, 5, 7, depending on color laws) are elected Only votes cast on the last turn of the 30-day election period count (if a nation votes for a senator and then isn’t present on the color when elections are decided, for example, that nation’s vote won’t count) All votes for senators are deleted and reset at the start of every 30-day senate term Nations must be active at least once every 30 days to vote Voting for laws and policies (see below) These work the same as voting for color bloc names and color senators, but in some cases players are unable to create new voting options In these cases, all possible vote choices are already present in-game An instance of the Cast New Vote box here will exist for every law and policy that senators and nations can vote on All laws and policies pass with simple majority support Votes by senators for color policies are deleted and reset at the start of every 30-day term Votes by nations for color laws are only deleted and reset if and when those laws are enacted; otherwise, nations’ votes remain indefinitely, although nations are free to change them at any time Additionally, policies (but not laws) require political power to pass (see below) As soon as there is enough political power in the color bank to pass a policy with majority support from the senate, the policy is enacted When there is enough political power to pass some but not all policies with majority support from the senate, policies are prioritized in the order in which they received majority support Each color generates political power based on its rank and the number of votes its elected senators receive Rank is determined by the following formula: color rank score = (number of cities on color) / ((total number of cities in active nations)*(number of alliances on color)) For each color, this is essentially equal to: (average cities per alliance) / (total cities in all active nations) Each turn, political power accrues in each color’s bank based on the following formula: political power per turn = (points from color rank) + (number of cities in nations which voted for the color’s current senators) Points from color rank are predetermined as follows: Rank as determined by relative color rank score (Rank 1 is highest score, 14 is lowest) Points accrued per turn 1 (20/200)*(total cities in all active nations) 2 (19/200)*(total cities in all active nations) 3 (18/200)*(total cities in all active nations) 4 (17/200)*(total cities in all active nations) 5 (16/200)*(total cities in all active nations) 6 (15/200)*(total cities in all active nations) 7 (14/200)*(total cities in all active nations) 8 (13/200)*(total cities in all active nations) 9 (12/200)*(total cities in all active nations) 10 (11/200)*(total cities in all active nations) 11 (11/200)*(total cities in all active nations) 12 (11/200)*(total cities in all active nations) 13 (11/200)*(total cities in all active nations) 14 (11/200)*(total cities in all active nations) The rank formula does not directly affect the benefits received by color trade blocs in this system, as similar schemes have done in the past. The only thing that matters is relative rank, not the absolute value of the rank formula. There is no inherent disincentive to having more alliances or fewer cities on your color as long as other colors do the same. Giving political power based on cities in nations that voted for victorious senators rewards high turnout and consensus-building, and it gives extra clout to nations with more cities. The total amount of political power generated per turn is between one and two times the total number of cities in active nations, depending on how active nations voted For balance purposes, it is assumed that the typical amount of political power generated per turn would be equal to 1.5 times the total number of cities in active nations This implies the average color’s senate was elected with exactly 50% of the votes of the nations on that color Color laws Enacted by a majority vote of all nations on the color Note: Defaults indicate the starting state of all colors if this proposal is implemented List of laws: Color name (works exactly as it does now) Secret/public ballots (secret by default) If ballots are public, clicking on the name of any law or on a link next to the name of any senator will lead to a page with a list of all nations currently voting for that law or senator Number of senators (three, five, or seven; five by default) Fewer senators = a more secure senate which generates less political power (insurgents would need up to one-third of the active nations to vote for a single candidate to elect a new senator) More senators = a less secure senate which generates more political power (more senate seats means more victorious senators, which likely means more total votes cast for victorious senators) Color policies Enacted by a majority vote of senators Note: The quantity “total cities in all active nations” will be abbreviated as “T” Note: Defaults indicate the starting state of all colors if this proposal is implemented List of policies Set color-wide taxes (default rate is 0% on both money and resources) Duration: permanent until changed by the senate Costs: (T/15)*(50) political power per 1% increase in money rate (T/15)*(50) political power per 1% increase in resource rate (T/15)*(25) political power per 1% decrease in money rate (T/15)*(25) political power per 1% decrease in money rate Senators would need to generate specific rates to vote on in the same way nations generate specific color trade bloc names to vote on currently Taxes are assessed against nations’ revenues before alliance taxes are Tax revenues are deposited in the color bank Set color-wide tariffs (default rate is 0% for all colors) Duration: permanent until changed by the senate Costs: (T/15)*(20) political power per 1% increase (T/15)*(10) political power per 1% decrease Each tariff targets trade between nations of the senate’s color and nations of a single other color (tariffs can be set against gray nations) This policy can be enacted multiple times simultaneously to target multiple colors Industrial policy (targets production of a specific resource) Duration: 30, 90, or 180 days Costs: (T/15)*(1000) for 30 days (T/15)*(1500) for 90 days (T/15)*(2000) for 180 days If the targeted resource is a raw resource, nations on the color produce 10% more of it and 5% less of all other raw resources Food cannot be targeted by this policy and will never be affected by this policy If the targeted resource is a refined resource, nations on the color produce 10% more of it and 5% less of all other refined resources For both raw and refined resources, each additional color with the same active policy targeting the same resource reduces the production boost by 1% For example, if three colors boost their steel production simultaneously, they will each receive an 8% increase in steel output and a 5% decrease in the output of all other resources This policy can be enacted twice simultaneously to target one raw and one refined resource Militarization (lower military upkeep) Duration: 180 days Cost: (T/15)*(1000) Monetary (not resource) upkeep of all military units reduced by 20% Privateering (counteracts the slight nerf this suggestion gives to raiding) Duration: 90 days Cost: (T/15)*(1000) Nations on the color who are aggressors in inter-color wars that use the Raid war type start with one extra MAP Convoy system (allows blockaded nations to trade, but with heavy losses) Duration: 90 days Cost: (T/15)*(1000) Intra-color trades and transfers on the color ignore blockades, but 50% of all money and resources sent to and from blockaded nations is destroyed Trade delays are a slight buff to ships; this is a slight debuff Radiation containment (slightly limit the effects of radiation) Duration: 90 days Cost: (T/15)*(1000) The radiation index of the color is reduced by 20% Nukes were slightly buffed by targeting political groups organized around colors, and food is more expensive to purchase from other colors; this counteracts those changes Unilateral senator powers Any senator may spend accumulated political power to immediately do any of the following: Ban a nation from the color Duration: 90 days Cost: (10)*(number of cities in banned nation) + (10)*(number of cities in nations currently voting for the banned nation) Prevents the nation from moving to the color for 90 days Immediately moves the nation to gray if it was on the color at the time of the ban Cannot be used on same-color senators (senators on other colors can still be targeted) Embargo a nation on another color Duration: 90 days Cost: number of cities in the embargoed nation Cannot target any nation on the same color as the senator Prevents all nations on the senator’s color from trading with the embargoed nation for 90 days The embargo remains in place if the embargoed nation joins the senator’s color, but has no effect (senators would need to ban a nation that did this to make the embargo effective) Gather intelligence Cost: (25)*(number of cities in the targeted nation) A senator targets a same-color nation with a gather intelligence spy operation that has a 100% chance of success The operation ignores spy range Feedback is appreciated. Thanks for reading. Edited December 12, 2019 by Edward I Fixed a another small loophole in the ban mechanic 4 11 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True King Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 (edited) Let’s copy the most annoying features from CN here, so with sheer numbers any hegemony focused group can prevent a nation from trading with others in the game; doing so pushing them out of the game is easy.. No thanks, senate powers are always abused so those less connected get sanctioned out of the game if they fight back against any bad alliance who’s become part of that hegemony. Edited August 24, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 When I said id like if colors were more useful for politics, I didn't mean to do so by making this game even more of a CN clone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zephyr Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 This sounds like it just gives large member count alliances an even greater advantage by locking down tools to further political and economic bullying of smaller alliances. I can't see how this idea is fun for anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted August 24, 2019 Author Share Posted August 24, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, Akuryo said: When I said id like if colors were more useful for politics, I didn't mean to do so by making this game even more of a CN clone. What did you have in mind, if not something along these lines? 8 hours ago, Zephyr said: This sounds like it just gives large member count alliances an even greater advantage by locking down tools to further political and economic bullying of smaller alliances. I can't see how this idea is fun for anyone else. It doesn't. Only the relative average city count (cities are correlated with member count) of alliances across different colors matters, and even then only indirectly. It also gives a lot of power to numerically inferior groups: Alliances with high average city counts get more political power per vote. It's possible to outvote them, but any senators elected in this way won't have much political power to bully them with. Senates are fragile. Electing even one senator hostile to a group that controls a color would allow you to use up 100% of that color's political power, either by banning the controlling group's nations or by sending the political power to a different color. To accomplish this you'd only need between 1/7 and 1/3 as many nations as the controlling group. Bullying people is deliberately expensive. Banning a nation from a color, for example, costs over 3x the amount of political power that nation would gain you if it was friendly and voted for a consensus candidate. And, if you use up all your political power using the banhammer, you'll have nothing left for economic policies. I'd say it's likelier that large alliances will have to canvass smaller ones for votes. The bottom five colors each get 11 political power per turn for every 20 the top color gets, and for any colors in between the disparity is even smaller. That makes it viable for people to spread out across fourteen colors rather than cluster together in the shadow of mass member alliances: control of even the worst colors gets you more than 50% of benefits of the best colors, and high voter turnout would close that gap even further. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one color became a haven for raiders, for example, thanks to the privateering policy, the protection having their own color would grant raiders, and Arrgh's generally high member count. Edited August 24, 2019 by Edward I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngd123 Posted August 27, 2019 Share Posted August 27, 2019 I like it you should add an impeach feature Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooper_ Posted September 1, 2019 Share Posted September 1, 2019 On 8/23/2019 at 9:48 PM, Edward I said: All inter-color trades and transfers cost $50 per unit to complete, assessed against the actor which complete the trade So I'm just gonna go through and point out all of the places where I see potential for improvement. Personally, I'm indifferent to these changes as a whole, but I like to see progress even if it's just for the sake of progress. I don't agree with this because it makes sale of cheap resources like food untenable. Maybe if it was a percentage instead of a per unit tax such as 2% or some arbitrary percentage of value traded. Also, maybe give grey a pass or a lower rate of like 0.1% or something, so traders can still do their thing effectively without significant impedance. On 8/23/2019 at 9:48 PM, Edward I said: This diminishes the first strike advantage in the current war mechanics and makes it slightly easier for smaller groups of nations to defend against larger groups I don't know if this is for the best because the first-strike advantage is also important for smaller groups of nations having a chance against larger groups just the same. Reducing the blitz-advantage isn't necessarily going to solve the problems with the meta right now. We'd need something much more dramatic in the restructuring of the war mechanics. On 8/23/2019 at 9:48 PM, Edward I said: All inter-color trades and transfers take one day (12 turns) to complete Upon completion, traded or transferred resources are removed from the sending bank or nation These resources cannot be looted while in transit Blockaded nations cannot complete trades or transfers which require them to send money or resources Trades that would require a blockaded nation to send resources cannot be accepted by other nations After 12 complete turns, traded or transferred resources are deposited in the receiving nation Personally, I find a whole day to be a bit excessive, and this would severely detriment an underdog's ability to fight back if blanket blockaded. I have a thought though it may be a bit complicated. Maybe, a nation only receives 50% of the bank transfer instantaneously and there is a turn-window (2 hours) to reblockade, during which the blockading nation can steal the other 50%. This allows for resources to get through, but also ups the stakes by threatening to give resources to the enemy. On 8/23/2019 at 9:48 PM, Edward I said: Options for seasonal effects on food production: Remove seasons entirely Keep them paired with the same resources they are now (e.g. nations with formerly South American resources experience winter when nations with formerly North American resources experience summer) Randomly assign seven colors to the “Northern Hemisphere” and seven to the “Southern Hemisphere” and re-implement seasonal effects accordingly Consider removing Antarctica’s resource set since the nerfs to food production associated with it would no longer exist An even simpler solution is just keep locations as is and tie seasons to that. Tie resources to your choice/credits and perhaps add specialization buffs for majority/plurality-produced resources per color bloc. On 8/23/2019 at 9:48 PM, Edward I said: Each color generates political power based on its rank and the number of votes its elected senators receive Rank is determined by the following formula: color rank score = (number of cities on color) / ((total number of cities in active nations)*(number of alliances on color)) For each color, this is essentially equal to: (average cities per alliance) / (total cities in all active nations) Each turn, political power accrues in each color’s bank based on the following formula: political power per turn = (points from color rank) + (number of cities in nations which voted for the color’s current senators) I don't like how larger colors get more political power. It should be relatively equal if not favored in smaller blocs otherwise everyone is going to group up in one or a few colors. This also represents a significant bias against individual alliances without significant allies and smaller/new alliances. On 8/23/2019 at 9:48 PM, Edward I said: Ban a nation from the color Should exclude other senators. On 8/23/2019 at 9:48 PM, Edward I said: This mechanic discourages older, larger nations and established alliances from sharing a color with new nations, small nations, and micros, which is a bad dynamic But protectorates? Also, ideally alliances should be a mix of tiers instead of a consolidation of any given tier. I apologize that this was all criticism, but this is just my view of the flaws at first glance that I have seen. I could have included some positive things too because those exist here too, but that would just be superfluous. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevanovia Posted September 1, 2019 Share Posted September 1, 2019 Creative idea. I like it. Appreciate the work you put into this @Edward I 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exar Kun -George Posted September 1, 2019 Share Posted September 1, 2019 (edited) Nice idea, hope @Alexconsiders it On 8/24/2019 at 12:19 AM, Noctis Anarch Caelum said: Let’s copy the most annoying features from CN here, so with sheer numbers any hegemony focused group can prevent a nation from trading with others in the game; doing so pushing them out of the game is easy.. No thanks, senate powers are always abused so those less connected get sanctioned out of the game if they fight back against any bad alliance who’s become part of that hegemony. The issue your going to find is the game lacks mechanical reason to declare any wars, the entire political meta is based off of the players and nothing else, and with that the issue is there is almost nothing other than this i believe could actually cause conflict. While feedback is always welcomed that was far from a worthwhile reply, your disagreement is it being cn? Its not like Fark even cares, they basically distance themself from ... well anything that could remotely cause conflict Edited September 1, 2019 by James T. Kirk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinx Posted September 1, 2019 Share Posted September 1, 2019 Interesting idea. I do like the colour policies, and the senator mechanics since it adds more to the politics aspects of the game. Not sure about the costs for resource trading though. Looking forward to seeing if this can move beyond the drawing board, just please make sure you spell "colour" right. ',p 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted September 1, 2019 Author Share Posted September 1, 2019 12 hours ago, Cooper_ said: I don't agree with this because it makes sale of cheap resources like food untenable. Maybe if it was a percentage instead of a per unit tax such as 2% or some arbitrary percentage of value traded. That would cause all sorts of undesired side effects. Imagine how much it would cost to transfer money by trading someone 1 food for millions of dollars, for instance. It would also encourage gamey trading habits, like only transferring large sums of resources when market prices are low. That would screw up banking and trading during wars, when it's arguably most essential, and it would likely make trading in general happen cyclically. If it's cheaper to move resources when prices are lower (which indicates high willingness by resource owners to transfer them in the first place), it would likely create vicious and virtuous cycles in which trading leads to more trading, or a lack of trading self-perpetuates. Because food production isn't as dependent on resource slots as the production of other resources is (you need land for food), because food is so cheap to begin with, and because it's less essential than other resources (your nation will still function without food, it'll just have reduced revenues) I didn't think it made sense to exempt it. If this becomes a balance issue, the best solution is probably to give food a lower per-unit transport cost than the other resources. 12 hours ago, Cooper_ said: Also, maybe give grey a pass or a lower rate of like 0.1% or something, so traders can still do their thing effectively without significant impedance. This would either be nearly meaningless or it would undermine the whole mechanic. If the gray per-unit fee (see above for why percentage fees are a bad idea) >= half the normal per-unit fee, it would make little sense to trade using gray because it would cost more to get resources from one non-gray color to another by going through traders based on gray. Unless you're suggesting it's better that a huge proportion of active nations semi-permanently reside gray, I don't think this is desirable. (Not to mention the strange effects this would have on alliance taxes, thereby hurting high-tax alliances relative to low-tax alliances.) If the gray per-unit fee < half the normal per-unit fee, then 2x the gray fee is the new effective inter-color transfer fee. It would make sense for traders and alliances to set up an entire offshore trading and banking infrastructure on gray to minimize bulk transfer/trading fees. I don't think it's a good idea to encourage this either. It's gamey and it would likely be somewhat confusing to new players. 12 hours ago, Cooper_ said: I don't know if this is for the best because the first-strike advantage is also important for smaller groups of nations having a chance against larger groups just the same. Reducing the blitz-advantage isn't necessarily going to solve the problems with the meta right now. We'd need something much more dramatic in the restructuring of the war mechanics. The first-strike advantage benefits more active groups, not necessarily smaller ones. Smaller groups are often more active than larger ones, true, but I've seen plenty of larger alliances or coalitions pull off effective blitzes. I don't pretend this will fix every issue with the war system. I only hope that it will give players a little more incentive to become politically and military independent from one another. If it doesn't, I don't think the difference in MAPs between using the Fortress war policy or not will be too detrimental to the war balance. 12 hours ago, Cooper_ said: Personally, I find a whole day to be a bit excessive, and this would severely detriment an underdog's ability to fight back if blanket blockaded. I have a thought though it may be a bit complicated. Maybe, a nation only receives 50% of the bank transfer instantaneously and there is a turn-window (2 hours) to reblockade, during which the blockading nation can steal the other 50%. This allows for resources to get through, but also ups the stakes by threatening to give resources to the enemy. 1) This only affects inter-color trades. Since most blockaded nations are aided economically by their own alliances, not allies on other colors, it's likely that any aid they receive will be an intra-color transfer and arrive immediately. 2) Providing more ways for winning nations to loot losing nations is probably not the best idea. Destroying the resources instead of stealing them is likely better for balance. 3) The basic idea isn't bad. It's very similar to the convoy policy in Section 4 of the proposal, so I think it could work if it turns out this is better-balanced than the version I proposed. 12 hours ago, Cooper_ said: An even simpler solution is just keep locations as is and tie seasons to that. Tie resources to your choice/credits and perhaps add specialization buffs for majority/plurality-produced resources per color bloc. That would require location changes still be restricted because nations could move between hemispheres at will to always enjoy the summer food production bonuses. 12 hours ago, Cooper_ said: I don't like how larger colors get more political power. It should be relatively equal if not favored in smaller blocs otherwise everyone is going to group up in one or a few colors. This also represents a significant bias against individual alliances without significant allies and smaller/new alliances. They don't. Only the relative number of cities per alliance on each color matters, and that only determines rank. Rank is what actually gives each color political power. This means two things: 1) Alliances with few cities aren't an inherent liability. As long as most other colors have a similar number of micros, you're fine. 2) The amount of political power each color gets is partly determined in advance. The best color gets 20 political power per turn, and the five worst colors get 11. That's not a huge spread, especially when you consider that the other half of potential political power comes from the way nations vote, not which color they're on. The other benefit of this model is it encourages nations and alliances to spread out. It doesn't matter how much the #1 color beats the #2 color by in the rank formula; it will still only give them one extra political power per turn. Ditto for the #2 through #10 colors. It will probably make more sense for very large groups to populate multiple colors than to consolidate themselves on a single color. 12 hours ago, Cooper_ said: Should exclude other senators. You're right, not sure how I didn't think to add that. I've edited it in. 12 hours ago, Cooper_ said: But protectorates? Also, ideally alliances should be a mix of tiers instead of a consolidation of any given tier. What about them? There isn't a way to force alliances to tier one way or another (most attempts to regulate how alliances work don't address the fact that players can change alliances unrestricted), but outright discouraging them from having low-score nations is silly, mechanically speaking. Like I said above, only the relative number of cities per alliance matters. This means micros and protectorates aren't necessarily liabilities, and number of cities per alliance doesn't tell you anything about the number of nations per alliance or their average scores. 12 hours ago, Cooper_ said: I apologize that this was all criticism, but this is just my view of the flaws at first glance that I have seen. I could have included some positive things too because those exist here too, but that would just be superfluous. No need to apologize. These were good points to discuss. On 8/23/2019 at 8:48 PM, Edward I said: Feedback is appreciated. Thanks for reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted September 1, 2019 Author Share Posted September 1, 2019 2 hours ago, James T. Kirk said: The issue your going to find is the game lacks mechanical reason to declare any wars, the entire political meta is based off of the players and nothing else, and with that the issue is there is almost nothing other than this i believe could actually cause conflict. While feedback is always welcomed that was far from a worthwhile reply, your disagreement is it being cn? Its not like Fark even cares, they basically distance themself from ... well anything that could remotely cause conflict One of the larger issues with game mechanics as they exist is that they consist of very little besides economic growth and wars. We grow our nations to build warchests, and we spend our warchests to grow our nations and to fight wars that prevent other people from doing the same. Pretty much every past and present mechanic that nominally wasn't about war or economics effectively was: treasures and color stock bonuses, for example, both offer purely monetary benefits. The other reason why the metagame is basically an endless cycle of economic growth interrupted by global wars is that there's no sense separation between nations. Without a mechanical representation of place, everything happens in the same place, which is everyone's backyard by default. To fix this, we need mechanics that a) offers something to fight over besides economic growth or military supremacy (which, again, are two sides of the same coin) and b) gives players a degree of insulation from the effects of others' wars (the reason most wars turn global is because, right now, there isn't such insulation) This proposal will not fix everything, and I'd be shocked if it even came close. But, since it mostly consists of incentives for players to create more drama rather than more heavy-handed solutions, I'm guessing it will offer a significant opportunity for a change in the metagame with little change to the game's existing balance. 2 hours ago, Sphinx said: Interesting idea. I do like the colour policies, and the senator mechanics since it adds more to the politics aspects of the game. Not sure about the costs for resource trading though. It's deliberately presented in a modular format in case parts of it are good enough to implement and other parts aren't. If everyone likes Sections 1, 2 and 4 but not Section 3, that shouldn't stop Alex from implementing those sections. Quote Looking forward to seeing if this can move beyond the drawing board, just please make sure you spell "colour" right. ',p When the Commonwealth wins a world war without getting bailed out by America, then you can tell us how to spell. (Alex already spells "color" the American way, so it's a moot point.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted September 1, 2019 Share Posted September 1, 2019 While I appreciate the amount of work you’ve put into this... you gotta be kidding. These would be insanely deep balance and gameplay changes, and the very idea of encouraging “consensus-building” is just plain stupid. Right now, yes, there is indeed no reason for politically motivated war other than the players.... Which are very obviously enough for war to happen on the regular as it is ? Smaller actors are the ones that need to be encouraged, not hegemonies of 16 sub-alliances that can literally kick entire alliances out of every color in the game if and when they don’t play “consensus”. Now, I’m not against the whole wall of text. The first bit about using colors as a form of geographic isolation is sensible and should be tested. I’m just saying the political stuff is horrifically unbalanced and encourages exactly the wrong things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted September 2, 2019 Author Share Posted September 2, 2019 2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said: While I appreciate the amount of work you’ve put into this... you gotta be kidding. These would be insanely deep balance and gameplay changes, and the very idea of encouraging “consensus-building” is just plain stupid. Right now, yes, there is indeed no reason for politically motivated war other than the players.... Which are very obviously enough for war to happen on the regular as it is ? I don't claim it will make wars happen more regularly, or even that they'll be smaller. It's possible that would happen if this were implemented, but I have my doubts. Instead, the aim of the proposal is to give players more to do during peace time and to give them more ways of creating their own drama. The proposal would mainly encourage consensus-building within individual colors, and it gives little additional ability for groups to project power beyond their own colors. Since I don't think anyone believes there are even close to fourteen significant centers of political power right now, I don't see how this would engender much additional consensus-building. Quote Smaller actors are the ones that need to be encouraged, not hegemonies of 16 sub-alliances that can literally kick entire alliances out of every color in the game if and when they don’t play “consensus”. I doubt it would facilitate true hegemonies. (I'm also not sure what you mean by "16 sub-alliances.") A senate majority is a house of cards because even one hostile senator can destroy weeks or months of work towards accumulating political power on a color. The ability to unilaterally spend all of a color's political power effectively gives a single senator veto power over everything a majority of nations on any color might want to do. Some numbers: There are less than 3500 nations in the top 100 alliances, of which less than 3000 are in the top 50 alliances. That works out to about 215 - 250 politically-aligned nations per non-gray color, depending on where you draw the line. Since there would be 3-7 senators per color, a group would need, on average, between 30 nations (~215/7) and 80 nations (~250/3) to elect a single senator. And that's almost certainly an overestimate, firstly because 3000 to 3500 overstates how many active nations there are in the top alliances, and secondly because several colors are likely to have more than 215-250 active nations. That means that several colors would have less than 215-250 active nations, which makes electing a senator on those colors even easier. If you can't get a mid-sized alliance's worth of nations voting for a single candidate, then it's not a problem of being oppressed; it's a problem of making alliances (or groups of alliances) that are too small or disorganized to be effective in their own right. Remember also that spending political power on banning people left and right will tend to put a color at a competitive disadvantage. Those nations could have generated political power if they'd been included in whatever majority controls the color in question, and banning them costs political power in the first place. That's political power that could otherwise be spent on economic or military policies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aksel Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 Honestly, I'll take the time to read something that is organized and well thought out. Regardless of the 'CN' clone comments, this would add a workable dynamic that I don't really see anyone getting around just to reap a benefit. Good work bro. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurnugia Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 (edited) A very good idea. I think there should be a new national project called: "Tradezone" which slashes the trade fee down to 50% if such change should be implemented. EDIT: To add to the senate politics: It should be limited to one senate seat per alliance. Furthermore voting should only publish the result after the periode is over. Voting should be anonymous. That way, it isn't possible to dominate the senate that easily. Edited September 5, 2019 by Kurnugia 1 Quote Opinions are my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted September 5, 2019 Author Share Posted September 5, 2019 1 hour ago, Kurnugia said: A very good idea. I think there should be a new national project called: "Tradezone" which slashes the trade fee down to 50% if such change should be implemented. Not a bad idea. I'm not sold on it, personally, because it would make trading far easier for large nations than for small nations, but if this gets implemented feel free add that to the project suggestions thread. 1 hour ago, Kurnugia said: EDIT: To add to the senate politics: It should be limited to one senate seat per alliance. Furthermore voting should only publish the result after the periode is over. Voting should be anonymous. That way, it isn't possible to dominate the senate that easily. One senate seat per alliance probably won't work. It doesn't make sense, at least to me, why a mass-member alliance should be limited to the same number of senators as a micro. Regardless, it would be a very easy restriction to circumvent: large alliances could make one-man satellite alliances and place their preferred senate candidates on them in the same way they already use offshore banks to prevent bank looting. The secret ballots law already covers anonymous voting - it's anonymous by default, although a simple majority of nations on a color can change that. Are you saying that the running vote tallies for each nation/senate candidate should be hidden as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasky Darkfire Posted September 7, 2019 Share Posted September 7, 2019 On 9/5/2019 at 1:17 PM, Edward I said: One senate seat per alliance probably won't work. It doesn't make sense, at least to me, why a mass-member alliance should be limited to the same number of senators as a micro. Regardless, it would be a very easy restriction to circumvent: large alliances could make one-man satellite alliances and place their preferred senate candidates on them in the same way they already use offshore banks to prevent bank looting. The one senator per alliance rule makes a lot of sense to me. Why should A large alliance be able to outvote however many other alliances might be in that color bloc, take over the majority or possibly all of the senate seats and then impose their will over any other nations/alliances in that bloc? Having only one senator being able to be from each alliance gives other alliances chances to come together and vote in people who represent their best interests. It also forces each senator into more political action to get something done. You actually have to work with senators who may not align with your ideals totally, which creates a lot of intrigue and other interesting aspects of the political game. You don't get that if everyone in the senate is just another one of your butt-buddies with the same views and points you have. As for the Satellite thing, that's a bold political move that could have ramifications for your color block if you get caught doing it. Have the ability for Alliances in the color bloc to impose sanctions, levy a recount, and other political moves against the nation who committed said act. It also creates a rock solid CB for any Alliance in that bloc to rise up. Or make it a rule that newer alliances can't put a candidate up for election or you have to have a certain amount of members before you can put up a candidate. or both. If you see a larger alliance starting to build up smaller micros to meet the requirements, then you might have to work with other color blocs to see if an invasion is possible to sway the vote away from such tactics. I, for one, welcome new Political side mechanics that allow for more interactions on the IC side. But I also don't want it to be easy as shit for a large - massive sized alliance to impose their will on everyone in their color bloc without being able to fight it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted September 7, 2019 Author Share Posted September 7, 2019 5 hours ago, Pasky Darkfire said: The one senator per alliance rule makes a lot of sense to me. Why should A large alliance be able to outvote however many other alliances might be in that color bloc, take over the majority or possibly all of the senate seats and then impose their will over any other nations/alliances in that bloc? Having only one senator being able to be from each alliance gives other alliances chances to come together and vote in people who represent their best interests. It also forces each senator into more political action to get something done. You actually have to work with senators who may not align with your ideals totally, which creates a lot of intrigue and other interesting aspects of the political game. You don't get that if everyone in the senate is just another one of your butt-buddies with the same views and points you have. As for the Satellite thing, that's a bold political move that could have ramifications for your color block if you get caught doing it. Have the ability for Alliances in the color bloc to impose sanctions, levy a recount, and other political moves against the nation who committed said act. It also creates a rock solid CB for any Alliance in that bloc to rise up. Or make it a rule that newer alliances can't put a candidate up for election or you have to have a certain amount of members before you can put up a candidate. or both. If you see a larger alliance starting to build up smaller micros to meet the requirements, then you might have to work with other color blocs to see if an invasion is possible to sway the vote away from such tactics. Are you suggesting a rule change here or a metagame norm? If people want to make it taboo for alliances to elect more than one of their members to a color senate, I think that would be a great source of controversy and an interesting addition to the metagame. If you're suggesting that the game rules or the moderation team impose limits on players forming alliances, it won't work. There isn't a good standard for what constitutes a "legitimate" or "independent" alliance affiliation, and any attempt to impose such a standard would be messy and untenable. This is the same reason why hiding a bank in a nation in VM is illegal, but offshore banks are completely legal. 5 hours ago, Pasky Darkfire said: I, for one, welcome new Political side mechanics that allow for more interactions on the IC side. But I also don't want it to be easy as shit for a large - massive sized alliance to impose their will on everyone in their color bloc without being able to fight it. I'm glad to hear you like the basic premise. ? I've explained why this likely wouldn't be the case in prior posts in this thread. Any alliance or group of alliances that doesn't lock down a color could have all of its gains wiped out almost instantaneously if an unfriendly senator gets elected. That alone is a powerful disincentive against wanton domination. The necessary votes for locking down a color are substantial (between 3/4 and 7/8 of active, voting nations, depending on the number of senate seats); the costs in political power for enforcing a small or controversial majority's control would likely be quite high; there are more colors than there are coherent political groups (out-groups have options); and it will typically be more profitable, in terms of political power, for an out-group to simply move to a new color rather than fighting for control of one in which it is being marginalized or oppressed. It would be very difficult to deprive even a modestly-sized group of nations of color-based power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.