Techcraft2 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Basically, if you win a ground war, you get to "occupy" the nation you just defeated and take a portion of their income and resources, until they are out of beige, which is when the occupation ends. Good idea or not? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magicboyd25 Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 So this is when you beige them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) I think he means when you beige them, you get to collect a % of their revenue and production each turn while on beige, which is pointless currently since a nation can simply switch right back out of beige. Edited April 8, 2015 by Micheal Malone Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Techcraft2 Posted April 8, 2015 Author Share Posted April 8, 2015 What I mean is, is that it is not when the are beiged, but the time of occupation simply matches that the amount of time you get of beige after losing a war. However, occupation and being beige technically have no correlation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Bob Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) When you defeat a country cleanly in batter, with 6 immense triumphs, you get the option of occupying them. You set a certain number of ground forces as occupation forces, meaning they can not be used in other wars. You can occupy a country for up to 5 days. They can attack your occupation forces, and if they earn a certain amount of victories, they can break the occupation, but if they lose a certain number of victories, the occupation is extended. You can add a certain amount of soldiers and tanks to your occupation forces each day. Edited April 9, 2015 by President Bob 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakai Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I'm not sure I like this. Wars already last long enough and you can capture resources & cash along the way. I could see huge nations occupying people forever, albeit in 5 day increments. I see it driving more people away. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Bob Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I'm not sure I like this. Wars already last long enough and you can capture resources & cash along the way. I could see huge nations occupying people forever, albeit in 5 day increments. I see it driving more people away. How about you only have a 20% chance of occupying, and you can not occupy the same nation twice with a certain amount of time. That would prevent more powerful nations from simply attacking the same nation over and over and occupying them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakai Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) How about you only have a 20% chance of occupying, and you can not occupy the same nation twice with a certain amount of time. That would prevent more powerful nations from simply attacking the same nation over and over and occupying them. I could go for it when tempered like this. I'd like to see you being forced to wait 45 days from the END date of your occupation before you are eligible to do it again. Edited April 9, 2015 by CzarOptima Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Bob Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 We could also add a positive aspect of being under occupation. Perhaps the occupying nation has the option of defending the nation. If the nation is attacked, the occupation forces would be then added to the defending forces. You could even allow a nation to allow itself to be occupied in order to get assistance in attacks. Many nations do that as part of Mutual Defense Treaties. The US has all sorts of bases in Japan and Europe. You could call those authorized occupations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakai Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) We could also add a positive aspect of being under occupation. Perhaps the occupying nation has the option of defending the nation. If the nation is attacked, the occupation forces would be then added to the defending forces. You could even allow a nation to allow itself to be occupied in order to get assistance in attacks. Many nations do that as part of Mutual Defense Treaties. The US has all sorts of bases in Japan and Europe. You could call those authorized occupations. I'm not sure I would agree with "authorized occupations". I see larger nations pimping smaller ones to augment their income. Huge nations with massive ground forces give X number of troops to 10 nations as an accepted occupying force drawing X% of extra resources? It would have to be thought, worked, tested, and reworked I'm sure to make it viable and fair. Edited April 9, 2015 by CzarOptima Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Bob Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I'm not sure I would agree with "authorized occupations". I see larger nations pimping smaller ones to augment their income. Huge nations with massive ground forces give X number of troops to 10 nations as an accepted occupying force drawing X% of extra resources? It would have to be thought, worked, tested, and reworked I'm sure to make it viable and fair. A small nation may be willing to allow themselves to be occupied for protection, giving up some revenue in exchange for the security of having a more power nation's troops supporting it's own. It happens all the time in RL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakai Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) A small nation may be willing to allow themselves to be occupied for protection, giving up some revenue in exchange for the security of having a more power nation's troops supporting it's own. It happens all the time in RL. My point is that it needs limits as its grounds for a massive loophole for nations to gain capital at an exponential rate compared to natural growth. Edited April 9, 2015 by CzarOptima Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I think taking their loot and alliance's loot is probably enough to represent a win. I wouldn't mind seeing an income penalty on a nation that has lost ground control though. Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 none of this will work...still a lot of inactive nation is around. or those who quit the game. Raiders will exploit this and keep getting rewarded indefinitely for their raids. So nope. 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.