Take away land

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

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.

[iljohn]

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

[naTia]

Only problem I see is realism with this. How are you going to take land from somebody in the other side of the world?

[SAI-40]

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.

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

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?

[Hereno]

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

[iljohn]

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

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

because infra can be destroyed, land is still dirt land

[naTia]

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

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

not really

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

Just on the same continent

[iljohn]

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

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

Just a thought

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

Sheepy what do you think?

[Reagan]

 

 

(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.

[Atzuya]

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.

[Skyler215]

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..

[Placentica]

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.

 

[T Servo]

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.

[naTia]

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

[Atzuya]

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.

[naTia]

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.

[Atzuya]

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.

[naTia]

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 .

[Ashland]

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.