Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 So I've an idea, when were at war, we should'nt only take money or supplies, but also land and make that land your own. Just an idea. Quote Peace will never be accomplished without war, but war cannot happen without peace.... or something like that idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iljohn Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) I agree not a big amount though. But would it be a every battle that gives you land our you get land once you defeat your opponent Edited October 25, 2014 by Johnathan Quote (^。^)y-.。o○ (-。-)y-゜゜゜ this is how i make my cloud http://i1371.photobucket.com/albums/ag291/petgangster/efb30519-f381-4330-a62b-11db0d2a058b_zpscilyk2rj.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Only problem I see is realism with this. How are you going to take land from somebody in the other side of the world? Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAI-40 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Only problem I see is realism with this. How are you going to take land from somebody in the other side of the world? In jars, I would think. 3 Quote "They're turning kids into slaves just to make cheaper sneakers. But what's the real cost? ‘Cause the sneakers don't seem that much cheaper. Why are we still paying so much for sneakers when you got them made by little slave kids? What are your overheads?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted October 25, 2014 Author Share Posted October 25, 2014 Only problem I see is realism with this. How are you going to take land from somebody in the other side of the world? How did Britain do it to all of those countries? Quote Peace will never be accomplished without war, but war cannot happen without peace.... or something like that idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 the big problem with this that we talked about in beta is deciding where the stolen land goes because land is attached to each city and then also where the land would come from Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iljohn Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 same with infa being destroyed from the largest city why not take land from the city with the most infa and it goes to the city with the most infa Quote (^。^)y-.。o○ (-。-)y-゜゜゜ this is how i make my cloud http://i1371.photobucket.com/albums/ag291/petgangster/efb30519-f381-4330-a62b-11db0d2a058b_zpscilyk2rj.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted October 25, 2014 Author Share Posted October 25, 2014 because infra can be destroyed, land is still dirt land Quote Peace will never be accomplished without war, but war cannot happen without peace.... or something like that idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) How did Britain do it to all of those countries? Britain didn't necessarily take land from anyone. What you are suggesting is annexation. Annexation and what you Britain did are separate matters. As Hereno said, land is attached to a city. So, when you buy land, you are not buying dirt, you are buying more area to build on legally. If land is legally owned by someone else's city, you would have to annex it to take it. This suggests that your city is close enough nearby that you can change ownership of an amount of land. Hence, you would need to be next to that country. Edited October 25, 2014 by The Captain Nao Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted October 25, 2014 Author Share Posted October 25, 2014 not really Quote Peace will never be accomplished without war, but war cannot happen without peace.... or something like that idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted October 25, 2014 Author Share Posted October 25, 2014 Just on the same continent Quote Peace will never be accomplished without war, but war cannot happen without peace.... or something like that idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iljohn Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 maybe if we get the new map idea come true it will matter more but at the moment getting land if on the same continent seems like that could work Quote (^。^)y-.。o○ (-。-)y-゜゜゜ this is how i make my cloud http://i1371.photobucket.com/albums/ag291/petgangster/efb30519-f381-4330-a62b-11db0d2a058b_zpscilyk2rj.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted October 25, 2014 Author Share Posted October 25, 2014 Just a thought Quote Peace will never be accomplished without war, but war cannot happen without peace.... or something like that idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted October 25, 2014 Author Share Posted October 25, 2014 Sheepy what do you think? Quote Peace will never be accomplished without war, but war cannot happen without peace.... or something like that idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reagan Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (He says "lives", but it sounds close enough to "land" to be funny. Use your imagination. ) In all seriousness, it's worth debating, but I think we're better off leaving land alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Realism shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether a suggestion is good or not, as literally nothing in this game is realistic Stealing land sounds like a good plan, but I think it should only happen upon winning wars (6 consecutive Immense Triumphs from ground battles). Perhaps a random city is picked from the defeated nation and a fourth of its land will go to the winning nation's city with the least amount of land. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyler215 Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Good idea and suggestion.. Let's see if this one is developed.. And mechanics should be made in a very scrutinized manner, that way we can avoid cheating or exploitation.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Only problem I see is realism with this. How are you going to take land from somebody in the other side of the world? Kinda agree with you. But stealing land in battle would be fun, but not realistic. Unless you have a really really big jar. 1 Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Servo Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 In jars, I would think. Hilarious! But aside from this, I do think this would add a new dynamic to the game. I like the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) I just don't think this makes any sense. The land is already there next to your city, you just need the rights to it. You are not stealing anybody's land by bringing it back in jars. (I know it's a joke) In reality, by taking somebody's land like previously stated, you only taking away a resource, a dirt cheap one heh at best, but still a resource. As well, this game is a nation simulator and already is realistic. Taking infrastructure or soldiers is more plausible than taking land in this game. It would be like allowing ships to fight for a city. It's possible in real life, but makes no sense in the game. Edited October 28, 2014 by The Captain Nao Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 If we're going to talk about 'realism', even in real life a nation can't just walk to a neighboring dirt patch and claim dibs there. We no longer live on the Colombus' age, a lot of people will get upset if you out of nowhere claim a patch of land just by plopping your ass there. It's not too unreasonable to imagine that a defeated nation would want to give up a patch of land for its conqueror. Was that happening, your armies are knocking on my capital? Here, you can have that fertile land on the west and some loot, just get the hell out of here please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Yes, which is where annexation comes into play. You could annex that land, but in order to annex it you would have to physically be next to somebody. In the current state of the game, land is attached to a city, so that city would literally have to be next to your enemy's city. Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 That shouldn't be a problem. Even right now an entire nation can magically replace itself to a different continent entirely, and foot soldiers have no problem attacking nations on the other end of the globe. Relocating a plot of land shouldn't be too hard, we have the technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I totally get what you are saying. I think you get maybe 90% of what I am saying. The land that is there already exists. The physical dirt on any given piece of the land is not what I am talking about. I am talking about space. The plot of land cities are on is not the dirt or ground, it is the intangible space. Legally, a city owns this space by buying it or acquiring it by various other methods. People can compete for the same space and both have claims on it, but they both cannot put two buildings in the same spot. This is the difference. You and I both can say we own the space at the North Pole, but we cannot both place things in that space. What is being suggested is this space trades hands and one city loses it, while another gains it. This space cannot be moved to another part of the globe, because it is intangible. So, in order for one city to gain and another to lose this space, they would have to be close enough together so that one city could add this amount of space to their total amount of space. This space is what they can build on and do whatever they want with. As you correctly said before, if somebody is attacking you, you could give them some of your space to make them go away. This would only work if you are close enough for that other city to incorporate that space into their own boundary. Unless you make a new state just to sit on that space . Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I don't know. This idea seems really brutal to me. Because land is frickin expensive. It would also disproportionately help older nations. Which I think is backwards. Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc 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.