Phiney Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Phiney would this be used as pre war tool over a peaceful solution to a problem Could be both, and if it was just prewar it'd give the defensive alliance time to build up, making the war more even and more interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I hate this idea with every ounce of my being(and I have a lot of ounces) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 It costs too much to mobilize for war to make 10% an incentive. I wouldn't spend millions to make thousands. I like the idea and see the potential. It just needs some development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 It costs too much to mobilize for war to make 10% an incentive. I wouldn't spend millions to make thousands. I like the idea and see the potential. It just needs some development. Agreed, hense above I said 20-40%. I'd say 20% per one, and up to three aggressive and 2 defensive, so you could lose a Max of 40% and gain 60% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Would this not be open for abuse by larger nations.That could just use the threat of war to gain extra income Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Would this not be open for abuse by larger nations.That could just use the threat of war to gain extra income See the OPs post of using the same ranges as the war range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Sanctions dont work in real life.Thats a fact.As far as an addition to the game it would be quite good.It could stop you getting smashed at least for a few days anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonnorman Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Could sanctions also be used as a peace tool to end wars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I hate this idea with every ounce of my being(and I have a lot of ounces) I changed my mind, I would instead like to make sweet sweet lovin to some sanctions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyro Posted December 23, 2014 Author Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) A few comments I saw in my original post. "Why would anyone actually agreed to be sanctioned? so that I give part of my income to you?" Would you rather have someone take a little of your income, (And 1% to 10% isn't much), or would you rather someone declare war on you destroying much of your infra, military units, and possibly raiding your resources? That's why someone would agree to a sanction. "Seems pointless, why not just embargo them?" Embargoes in the game do not work like this, all the embargoes do is keep you from being able to trade with them. At least thats what it seems to do for me. "Would this not just be a reason for a large nation to bully a smaller nation." Sanctions can only be done within war range, you may be a large nation, but if someone is close to your war range, you have a risk of their military power being closely matched, or higher, to/than your own. "Doesn't conform to any expectation of what sanctions actually are." This is a game, it doesn't always have to make sense as long as it continues to entertain the gamers using it, call the idea whatever you want. It's just another alternative to war. I'm sure 1 ton of steel is not enough to make a complete tank! "I would be more willing to have 1% chosen by myself than a random 10%" There's no random numbers, you choose the amount to be sanctioned and agree on it. "Could sanctions also be used as a peace tool to end wars?" My idea is an alternative to war, if you don't want the devistation of war, then allow yourself to be sanctioned for a short period. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As I said, it's just a thought, not everyone is going to like the idea. Edited December 23, 2014 by Spyro F Dragon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Are.. wasn't this in another thread? Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baboon Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Please don't make multiple threads about the same suggestion. Merged. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elsuper Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Can't this already be done within existing trade mechanics? "Buy 1 food from us at $2m or we attack" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 (edited) You can already threaten and extort money from people using the current in game mechanics if you so desire. This doesn't really add anything. Edited December 24, 2014 by underlordgc Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outburst Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 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. I like the idea of using sanctions as potential truce conditions. Not sure on the random percentage, but that could be refined to a fixed percentage or determined on somekind of basis. 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. What would prevent an alliance from sanctioning an alliance, bulking up with the additional money gained, and destroying them anyways? It is unique, yes, but is it actually constructive? You can already threaten and extort money from people using the current in game mechanics if you so desire. This doesn't really add anything. Pretty much this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 What would prevent an alliance from sanctioning an alliance, bulking up with the additional money gained, and destroying them anyways? It is unique, yes, but is it actually constructive? Let the players figure out who to trust. Quote 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.