Make land capturable or decay

[Corvidae]

Probably going to get all the downvotes here but land shouldn't be immutable.

It would be cool to either be able to steal land from your opponents or have it decay over time, needing replacement and therefore repayment.

 

That's the whole idea, give me all your downvotes fellow whales, but look at your income and tell me that it's not 60-80% from producing food.

[Jacob Knox]

I've been relatively on board with the suggestion of stealing land for some time now lol

[MrBeast6000]

52 minutes ago, Raphael said:

Probably going to get all the downvotes here but land shouldn't be immutable.

It would be cool to either be able to steal land from your opponents or have it decay over time, needing replacement and therefore repayment.

 

That's the whole idea, give me all your downvotes fellow whales, but look at your income and tell me that it's not 60-80% from producing food.

stealing land: No one would fight wars unless it's an absolute dogpile. And whoever wins the most wars will grow the most, thus making it much harder for the loser to keep up with the winner growth wise.

decay overtime: This might be interesting to see depending on how it's implemented.

[Zoot]

8 hours ago, Raphael said:

Probably going to get all the downvotes here but land shouldn't be immutable.

It would be cool to either be able to steal land from your opponents or have it decay over time, needing replacement and therefore repayment.

 

That's the whole idea, give me all your downvotes fellow whales, but look at your income and tell me that it's not 60-80% from producing food.

I'll give you the downvote you ask for. Not necessarily because I think a way to destroy land is a bad idea, but because you don't give a proper argument for why your idea would improve the game, but instead just write that "it would be cool". Argue why your suggestion will improve the game. What issue is it addressing? What part of the game play is it improving?

[Mayor]

Land has almost no impact on the game at all and is just a large investment for food producing nations. "Capturing Land" would just make wars more punishing and expensive. Really all your proposals are just to stunt growth or weaken older players who have literally spent years building their nations; why should some 6 month old scrub be able to equally compete? Newer players have many tools to build up their cities at the fastest rate I have ever seen, they can use them rather than the game being more tedious for others.

If capturing land or land decay are implemented then I just don't buy land anymore other than what is most efficient, if infrastructure is far to expensive to replace I don't fight wars or I don't buy too much infra. Less money, less reason to check on growth, even slower game.

If a solution to peoples slow growth is to make projects cheaper then that is fine with me, imho projects pricing are all over the place. ie. Gas Reserve

Edited February 18, 2024 by Mayor
grammar

[Sketchy]

This is not a good idea.

Land is the only current possible permanent investment that allows nations to build tall, rather than wide. The game needs more mechanics like this, not less, to open up more avenues of choice in investment, and to give people options other than "buy more city".

I understand conceptually that stealing land makes sense, but nothing in this game makes sense if you think much about it from a realism standpoint, and gameplay balance should be prioritized over realism.