Jump to content

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


Spyro
 Share

Recommended Posts

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%

T7Vrilp.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Spyro F Dragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by underlordgc

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:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.