My Sanction Suggestion, a few comments I'd like to anwser.

[Spyro]

I have an idea, which I sent to Sheepy through in-game messaging. He suggested I placed it here and get feedback on it.

 

So instead of rewriting the entire idea, I'm just going to copy and paste the message here, editing some of it.

I did forget to add something in my message to Sheepy tho, so I'll add it here.

 

:Message to Sheepy:

I had another idea for the game if you're interested, and if it's possible to do.

I've been seeing people use the term Sanctions when role-playing in the forum tabs, and also it's used a lot in real life against countries.

I thought it might be cool to actually add it to the game.

Just like Declaring War, or Embargoing nations, we could use Sanctions as another means of negative effects on other Nations.

Sanctions when placed on countries, usually causes them to lose money.

So, as an alternative to War, or as a way to show aggression towards another player, we could place a Sanction on a players nation.

What it'll do is just take a little of their Net Income, Money, say between, 1% to 10%, and hand it over to the Nation in which has set it up.

In order for the Sanction to work, it must be approved by both nations. This way no one can over dominate another country, because both nation must agree to go forward with it.

Agreement must be made on percentage of income to be taken out, as well as how long the sanction will last.

Percentage: Minimum 1% Maximum 10%
Time: Minimum 3 Real Life Days, Maximum 1 Real Life Week

While the sanctions are in place, both nations can not declare war on each other, adding to that, after the sanctions are no longer in place, there will be a 7 day peace period between the 2 nations, which means after the sanctions, both nations still can not declare war on each other for another 7 days. (This makes things fair by allowing the Country that was sanctioned a chance to grow a little more incase there are still hostile feelings between the two players.)

Example:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Baatopia places sanctions on Gayden. In order for the sanctions to be placed, both Baatopia and Gayden must agree on a percentage of income between 1% to 10%, next step, how long the sanction will last, between 3 to 7 days, real life time.

Baatopia profits from the sanction placed on Gayden, Gayden agrees to the sanction to keep Baatopia from declaring War on it.

If the two nations can not come to an agreement, then Gayden risks the possibility of having War declared on it by Baatopia.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nations can have only 2 sanctions placed on it at a time, 1 by 2 different nations. This way it doesn't effect a persons income too badly, allowing them to still grow.

The main purpose, is for an alternative to war.

Hope you like the idea. It's only a thought.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I'd like to add 2 more things, which I forgot to include n my message to sheepy.

 

1. Nations can only sanction other nations whose scores are in range.

2. While in peace period (after a sanction has ben completed), you not only can't declare war on the same nation you sacntioned, but you are not able to place another sanction on them until the peace period is over.

 

Hope you all like the idea. As I said, just a thought, I look at it as an alternative to war, and brings a little more realistic feel to the game.

[Pwnius Scrubius]

This is interesting

[Vincent]

Why would anyone actually agreed to be sanctioned? so that I give part of my income to you?

[Phiney]

Like it, but think you might as well use the same time periods as war, get it to fit in better. I.e. once you set up a sanction it auto lasts 5 days, but you can peace out during. Could even make it so the sanctioned nation has an option to get out if it by declaring war on the nation sanctioning them.

[Phiney]

Why would anyone actually agreed to be sanctioned? so that I give part of my income to you?

To stop me declaring on you. E.g. I message you saying I will declare on you unless you agree to this sanction.

[SoS]

Good idea, but it would almost never be used by large nations. No aggressor would tip his hand like that.

 

Would be extensively used in trade agreements though.

[Georgi Stomana]

Seems pointless, why not just embargo them? An embargo is exactly the same as a sanction only generally sanctions only target certain imports/exports.

 

It would never be used. Why? Because firstly most nations are aligned, and a sanction would be an act of war on their alliance. Second it would basically give your enemy time to prepare for war and tip off the nation to their intentions.

 

Seems like something which wouldn't be used outside roleplaying where both nations agree to it before hand, not "serious" playing of the game.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Georgi Stomana

[Phiney]

Seems pointless, why not just embargo them? An embargo is exactly the same as a sanction only generally sanctions only target certain imports/exports.

 

It would never be used. Why? Because firstly most nations are aligned, and a sanction would be an act of war on their alliance. Second it would basically give your enemy time to prepare for war and tip off the nation to their intentions.

 

Seems like something which wouldn't be used outside roleplaying where both nations agree to it before hand, not "serious" playing of the game.

Not sure I agree at all. GPA could sanction another alliance for example. No reason this has to be just individuals. You prepare for war, and then declare sanction on your opponent. They're unprepared so they accept, saving their ass and gaining you extra income. They don't accept, you destroy them and they lose a lot more than 10% of their income.

[stetonic]

Would this not just be a reason for a large nation to bully a smaller nation.

 

Give me some of your money or i will attack you 

[Georgi Stomana]

Not sure I agree at all. GPA could sanction another alliance for example. No reason this has to be just individuals. You prepare for war, and then declare sanction on your opponent. They're unprepared so they accept, saving their ass and gaining you extra income. They don't accept, you destroy them and they lose a lot more than 10% of their income.

Even that way it seems incredibly clunky and doesn't conform to any expectation of what sanctions actually are, no real nation would agree to be sanctioned. It just sounds ridiculous even thinking about your scenario, where an alliance is sanctioned and magically wow the whole world knows that in 5 days comes war.

 

Also let's think about what sanctions are, sanctions are not going to financially benefit the nation doing the sanctioning, they will just deprive the nation being sanctioned of importing any of the sanctioned goods from the sanction-er nation.

 

That said I will put my own proposal for sanctions to be constructive; why not enable nations and alliances to sanction other nations/alliances in the same way as Embargoes currently work, BUT it's only for a specific type of good, ie Guardian sanctions UPN for Munitions, meaning both sides cannot sell munitions to each other but they can other resource types.

[Phiney]

Even that way it seems incredibly clunky and doesn't conform to any expectation of what sanctions actually are, no real nation would agree to be sanctioned. It just sounds ridiculous even thinking about your scenario, where an alliance is sanctioned and magically wow the whole world knows that in 5 days comes war.

 

Also let's think about what sanctions are, sanctions are not going to financially benefit the nation doing the sanctioning, they will just deprive the nation being sanctioned of importing any of the sanctioned goods from the sanction-er nation.

 

That said I will put my own proposal for sanctions to be constructive; why not enable nations and alliances to sanction other nations/alliances in the same way as Embargoes currently work, BUT it's only for a specific type of good, ie Guardian sanctions UPN for Munitions, meaning both sides cannot sell munitions to each other but they can other resource types.

You definitely don't understand the proposed idea, it has nothing to do with embargo's. The sanctioning nation receives 10% of the sanctioned nations income.

[Georgi Stomana]

I know. I'm talking about what "economic sanction" means in real-life. Why would the sanctioning nation receive money? It doesn't make sense.

 

It sounds to me like what the proposal really is, is a nation/alliance taxing another nation/alliance, in the same way that alliances tax their own members. I mean if that's what it is call it tribute or something, not sanctions.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Georgi Stomana

[Ollysho]

Hrmmm I think in order for it to work best it should also be able to be done through alliances; so Aation A raids a certain alliance and so the alliance places a sanction on Nation A. But it could sort of work as peace terms or something to that extent.

Hrmmm I think in order for it to work best it should also be able to be done through alliances; so Aation A raids a certain alliance and so the alliance places a sanction on Nation A. But it could sort of work as peace terms or something to that extent.

[Phiney]

I know. I'm talking about what "economic sanction" means in real-life. Why would the sanctioning nation receive money? It doesn't make sense.

 

It sounds to me like what the proposal really is, is a nation/alliance taxing another nation/alliance, in the same way that alliances tax their own members. I mean if that's what it is call it tribute or something, not sanctions.

Let's not quarrel about the name, that's neither here nor there, call it what you want, the actual idea has a lot of merit and could actually make this game different to others.

[Saru]

Not sure I agree at all. GPA could sanction another alliance for example. No reason this has to be just individuals. You prepare for war, and then declare sanction on your opponent. They're unprepared so they accept, saving their ass and gaining you extra income. They don't accept, you destroy them and they lose a lot more than 10% of their income.

 

I find the way Phiney presented this interesting, and it's something for sure we should consider.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

It sounds like an Embargo to me.  That's what sanctions are really.  Modern sanctions are an almost embargo, like a lesser version.  

[Geronimo]

Very interesting. 

[SoS]

It'd make more sense to me if sanctions were a form of truce. You declare war. Then at any point in the war either side could offer a "sanctions truce". If both sides accept, a random sanction between 1% and 10% is generated.

[stetonic]

If you can agree on a sanctioned truce then why make the sanction amount random.Just agree on an amount yourself

[Phiney]

It'd make more sense to me if sanctions were a form of truce. You declare war. Then at any point in the war either side could offer a "sanctions truce". If both sides accept, a random sanction between 1% and 10% is generated.

Why degrade a potentially politics inducing and game changing feature? If we find something new and interesting we can implement into the game that makes it different, the last thing we want to do is dilute it into a boring feature any game might have.

[SoS]

If you can agree on a sanctioned truce then why make the sanction amount random.Just agree on an amount yourself

Each side may be more willing to choose sanctions if they could get lucky on the amount.

[stetonic]

Each side may be more willing to choose sanctions if they could get lucky on the amount.

I would be more willing to have 1% chosen by myself than a random 10%

[SoS]

Why degrade a potentially politics inducing and game changing feature? If we find something new and interesting we can implement into the game that makes it different, the last thing we want to do is dilute it into a boring feature any game might have.

It would be more boring if no one used it. I don't see an alliance demanding sanctions from an opponent. You threaten someone and They'll negotiate while they bulk and pre-empt.

 

But yeah, this as a truce mechanic would be more limited than I like.

[Phiney]

It would be more boring if no one used it. I don't see an alliance demanding sanctions from an opponent. You threaten someone and They'll negotiate while they bulk and pre-empt.

 

But yeah, this as a truce mechanic would be more limited than I like.

I completely disagree. I could quite easily see an alliance spend a couple of days bulking for war, declaring publically that they will sanction x alliance and if they do not accept within 24 hours, destroy them. 24 hours is not long enough to build a whole alliance up for war, so they would maybe accept, as 5 days is not long to have 20-40% of their income taken. It's a win win for both sides, and a completely different political scenario than you would have in any other game like this. I actually love this idea, its very unique.

[stetonic]

Phiney would this be used as pre war tool over a peaceful solution to a  problem