Colonization (Project)

[Shubham Sharma]

Requires: 

Money - $250,000,000

Prerequisites: 

1. Propaganda Bureau

2. Nuclear Research Facility

Info:- 

Colonization project would allow a nation to make the defeated nation as it's temporary colony for a set number of days - 5, 10 or 15 depending which one the victor of war chooses. 

What this would entail is that, out of all the resources that the defeated nation produces and the revenue it generates some amount of it would go to the victor and the amount would depend on the number of days, the victor chooses the defeated Nation to be colonized. Suppose, 50%50% if they wish to colonize for 5 days, 35%35% for 10 days and 20%20% for 15 days. And these would not be deducted from the taxes sent to alliance but whatever is left after the taxes. And a nation can't be colonized again for next 30/60 days after it has been colonized once. 

I think this can add a nice flavour to the game. 

Do tell me if someone wants to ask more questions, or perhaps wants to criticize my opinion. All criticisms even harsh ones are welcome with open heart. 

[Kuuhaku]

Why is NRF a requirement for this?

 

Other than that, both the percentages and days are way too big, and the ROI seems to be very low depending on which nation you colonize. If I were to choose to colonize someone with 25m daily revenue, I’ll already have a quarter of my investment back in 5 days. I can just abuse this as a raider over several nations, repeatedly.

Think of it in a full scale war scenario, where someone decides to take half of your revenue for 5 days, in addition to doing infra damage on all of your cities and looting your war chest already, while also being in at least 2-3 different wars. This is simply crushing the losing side even more.

 

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Shubham Sharma]

2 hours ago, Kuuhaku said:

Why is NRF a requirement for this?

 

Other than that, both the percentages and days are way too big, and the ROI seems to be very low depending on which nation you colonize. If I were to choose to colonize someone with 25m daily revenue, I’ll already have a quarter of my investment back in 5 days. I can just abuse this as a raider over several nations, repeatedly.

Think of it in a full scale war scenario, where someone decides to take half of your revenue for 5 days, in addition to doing infra damage on all of your cities and looting your war chest already, while also being in at least 2-3 different wars. This is simply crushing the losing side even more.

 

Can changing the revenue percentages work? I do admit, I set it pretty high but other than that what could be the problem

I think this can actually lessen the chances of people going on full fledged war.

[Malakai]

8 hours ago, Baron Shubham said:

Requires: 

Money - $250,000,000

Prerequisites: 

1. Propaganda Bureau

2. Nuclear Research Facility

Info:- 

Colonization project would allow a nation to make the defeated nation as it's temporary colony for a set number of days - 5, 10 or 15 depending which one the victor of war chooses. 

What this would entail is that, out of all the resources that the defeated nation produces and the revenue it generates some amount of it would go to the victor and the amount would depend on the number of days, the victor chooses the defeated Nation to be colonized. Suppose, 50%50% if they wish to colonize for 5 days, 35%35% for 10 days and 20%20% for 15 days. And these would not be deducted from the taxes sent to alliance but whatever is left after the taxes. And a nation can't be colonized again for next 30/60 days after it has been colonized once. 

I think this can add a nice flavour to the game. 

Do tell me if someone wants to ask more questions, or perhaps wants to criticize my opinion. All criticisms even harsh ones are welcome with open heart. 

 

I would definitely suggest retooling the costs, duration, and amounts. Return on investment is definitely a focus and a price tag of $300M+ is going to limit this projects uses to whales, which also severely limits the scope of who will be affected.  

It might be worth considering to make this available to smaller nations at a price around $80-$125M? To make cash and resource garnishment equitable I'd suggest 4% for 3 days as a flat rate making the system simpler. Additionally I think "colonization" may be less accurate and very confusing. Maybe "International Sanctions Program" or something similar?

I like the idea of this added element to the game. Good start on an interesting idea.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Optima

[Avatar Patrick]

Aside from cost and unnecessary prerequisites, the biggest issue that stands out to me is the fact that you can simply dodge it by having 100/100 taxes. It should apply before taxes not after.

[Wendell]

11 hours ago, Baron Shubham said:

Do tell me if someone wants to ask more questions, or perhaps wants to criticize my opinion. All criticisms even harsh ones are welcome with open heart. 

Are you ready? Here it goes:

IT WILL NOT GO OVER WELL WITH THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS.

IT WILL CAUSE THE GAME TO BREAK WHEN A WHOLE BLOC BUILDS THIS PROJECT AND COLONIZES A SECOND WEAKER BLOC.

IT'S CALLED A PERPETUAL WIN CONDITION WHICH THIS GAME IS NOT DESIGNED FOR!!

Federation come get your guy....

[lightside]

I like the idea but the numbers should be reduced and this should require a unique war dec different then raid/ordinary/attrition to function.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

Here's how you know your idea is absolutely terrible.

I, Akuryo, agree 100%, with a deulos post. You literally have scientists right now trying to figure out where their math went wrong thinking it was impossible.

 

[lightside]

2 hours ago, Deulos said:

Are you ready? Here it goes:

IT WILL NOT GO OVER WELL WITH THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS.

IT WILL CAUSE THE GAME TO BREAK WHEN A WHOLE BLOC BUILDS THIS PROJECT AND COLONIZES A SECOND WEAKER BLOC.

IT'S CALLED A PERPETUAL WIN CONDITION WHICH THIS GAME IS NOT DESIGNED FOR!!

Federation come get your guy....

I doubt that and no need for caps. The numbers he mentioned do need to be nerfed quite abit but it can be balanced with the cooldown he mentioned.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

14 hours ago, lightside said:

I doubt that and no need for caps. The numbers he mentioned do need to be nerfed quite abit but it can be balanced with the cooldown he mentioned.

Considering rose built a frickton of $700m spy sats and this costs not even half that with the prerequisites which most people have, I think maybe you should base your "thoughts" on something more approaching actual empirical evidence.

It would not be difficult for any sphere to do this if they so desired. And the inherent problem with "balancing" the numbers of something like this is that it will either be too low for anyone to ever care or too much and create a perpetual win condition.

[Dr Rush]

First off, lets ignore the presented numbers and look at the fundamental concepts. Fundamentally this a further punishment for losing a war and further benefit for winning. This also means that in its fine balancing it can only have two states, help attackers/hurt defenders or be so weak as to do nothing. Now the question is that something that is wanted/needed. The game already punishes losers pretty heavily. Too heavily in fact, this is the general community consensus and also the objective observation after looking at how conflicts play out. That means if has any effect it is defacto OP. That only leaves having no appreciable effect, which makes it a waste of time implement because it will never do anything.