Other Announcements

noc, it was Sarcasm...

I don't care if it was sarcasm. Also, you might want to say that before. Kinda hard to interpret tone of voice through text.

it was pretty obvious...

Shows how much you know lax. I actually do like the WU. I actually kinda prefer playing politics with the WU and NPCs than just smashing everything. Plus this way I get to play politics and occasionally do some fighting.

you cant do any battleing with the WU unless you are attacked or BB makes an NPC do something 'wrong'...

nocbl2 wrote:The whole point of the game is to rule the world. How are players going to do that if the WU is on their backs all the time?

That's actually impossible to do, since to rule the world you would have to defeat all the players, and the game would die of inactivity as people stopped playing when one player was certainly going to win.

If you WANT to rule the world, and that is your objective, then go for it! That's the role you want to play, so go take over the world, just be aware that the point at which you "win" is when people go inactive in frustration.

If someone wants to be a peacemaker, diplomatic state that tries to organize everything, or an rogue state that listens to no one, or whatever, then they can do that too. Because there's no stated objective in the game, or any way to actually "win" it, there's no reason people can't just talk in the World Union, or oppose it. It's really a matter of choice.

What I like about this game's design is the free-form of being able to do pretty much whatever, but still dealing with semi-realistic consequences, as obviously some things annoy other people/NPCs and they then oppose such actions, but there's not anything saying that you CAN'T execute your own population or be an empire, or else be dedicated to opposing actions similar to those. It just so happens that many players are against military expansion at this point, so doing it draws their negative attention.

Oh. I thought the whole point was just to kinda play it out like Risk.

Well then. I think I'll take the mad scientist approach now. And make all my people cyborgs.

CivBase wrote:Each natural resource has the same value, so I fail to see how it would be unfair.

If each resource has the same value, then what is the purpose of trading them, if you gain one but lose another? Each resource would have to have a separate purpose in order to make trade under your system worth anything.

CivBase wrote:I wouldn't be offering the idea if we weren't already running into problems. He may as well just drop trade at this point because there's no strategic value in the current system. Forcing people to do mass trade spam slower isn't going to change the fact that it's still mass trade spam.

There's nothing wrong with trade spam, as long as it isn't done in a way that not everyone will do, ala mass trade diplo. Trade will become important when people start imposing sanctions and such.

Imagine, for a moment, that everyone was trading with lax. Then lax dropped a nuke on the NAR. Now, imagine that a good deal of nations were upset, and imposed sanctions on him. Suddenly, lax loses 18 trade routes, but each member only loses 1. He instantly loses 2PP, whereas the rest of us might not even lose a single econ.

CivBase wrote:The math for the new system doesn't take much more time. If people aren't willing to put a minuscule amount of time and effort into improving their econ, then that is their loss.

It is more complicated, if for no other reason than because the current trade system is a one variable equation, whereas yours is a five variable equation. You're talking about trying to keep track of and calculate the effects of five different resources, here. OB's third attempt at IN had a resource system like that. It was cool, but unrealistic.

CivBase wrote:You wouldn't have to overhaul the map. Just assign resources to territories, which should be pretty easy anyway. Territories would be pretty much randomly assigned their resources, but with higher concentrations of oil in the Middle East, wood in South America, coal in North America, etc.

...You do realize that there are over 450 territories on the map, right?

CivBase wrote:I disagree. I've noticed this problem from the start, and now it's finally being addressed. The system I gave is just an example idea, but I want changes to the current trade system to be given serious consideration. This is supposed to be a strategy game, and I feel like econ is seriously lacking in that department (in much the same was as Failo Wars).

With our current player base, creating an overly complex econ system would not only make BB's job even harder than it already is, but it would probably scare off at least half the players. I don't know about you, but I like it when there are a decent number of active players participating in a game. It makes things a lot more interesting.

tiny tim wrote:Shows how much you know lax. I actually do like the WU. I actually kinda prefer playing politics with the WU and NPCs than just smashing everything. Plus this way I get to play politics and occasionally do some fighting.

Says the person who has a massive military? You only like the WU becuase rot likes the WU

dragoon9105 wrote:

tiny tim wrote:Shows how much you know lax. I actually do like the WU. I actually kinda prefer playing politics with the WU and NPCs than just smashing everything. Plus this way I get to play politics and occasionally do some fighting.

Says the person who has a massive military? You only like the WU becuase rot likes the WU

Your logic seems to be flawed here. If he has a massive military, what does that have to do with anything? Of course he has a lot of violent power that he could potentially use, but there is kind of a matter of self-preservation and defense in this game, don't you think?

So if I like the WU, then I most like it because Rot does? If I like chocolate ice cream, then I most like it because my best friend likes it? Just because he is an ally of Rot and Rot is a friend, doesn't mean he likes the WU because Rot is involved and likes it.

I like French action movies because my friend does.

Ruski wrote:

dragoon9105 wrote:

Says the person who has a massive military? You only like the WU becuase rot likes the WU

So if I like the WU, then I most like it because Rot does? If I like chocolate ice cream, then I most like it because my best friend likes it? Just because he is an ally of Rot and Rot is a friend, doesn't mean he likes the WU because Rot is involved and likes it.

Its a running joke that Tiny Tim is quite a distance up Rot's ass. Whether this is confirmed or not, that's up to debate.

he is so far up, Rot's Adams apple is accually Tim's Head

Ruski he copied rots, Unique, Stat distribution and has done nothing BUT agree with him since the game started lol.

Perhaps he wanted a tank unique, a military powerhouse, and sees logic in Rot's arguments. I mean, it's a long shot, but it's possible.

I would hardly call tim's unique a copy of mine. It's as much a copy as mine as it is of Bacon's, as the only prerequisite to be a copy is apparently being the same kind of unit, in this case, a tank.

Personally, I disagreed with tim's stat layout, and advised him to go econ or culture, given the kind of country he has stated he wants to be: a scientific one. For an alleged pawn, he certainly wasn't cooperative on that point.

Rotaretilbo wrote:If each resource has the same value, then what is the purpose of trading them, if you gain one but lose another? Each resource would have to have a separate purpose in order to make trade under your system worth anything.

Because of the econ points system I suggested, having a majority of a single natural resource is counter-productive. A nation gets more points for having 2 food, 2 metal, 4 oil, 4 coal, and 4 wood than for having 16 oil. Because the worlds geography would create high concentrations of a single natural resource in an area, nations would have to trade in order to get the most out of their econ.

For example, a nation in the middle east would probably have a ton of oil. They would have to trade their oil in order to make up for the short supply of wood and food in that area.

Rotaretilbo wrote:There's nothing wrong with trade spam, as long as it isn't done in a way that not everyone will do, ala mass trade diplo. Trade will become important when people start imposing sanctions and such.

Imagine, for a moment, that everyone was trading with lax. Then lax dropped a nuke on the NAR. Now, imagine that a good deal of nations were upset, and imposed sanctions on him. Suddenly, lax loses 18 trade routes, but each member only loses 1. He instantly loses 2PP, whereas the rest of us might not even lose a single econ.

A sanction is only effective when you can convince everyone to do it, including the independent territories. With the current setup, that is pretty much impossible. Two points is likely the most damage you will be able to inflict with sanctions, and by the time he's dropping nukes he'll likely have so much PP that it wont make a difference.

Rotaretilbo wrote:It is more complicated, if for no other reason than because the current trade system is a one variable equation, whereas yours is a five variable equation. You're talking about trying to keep track of and calculate the effects of five different resources, here. OB's third attempt at IN had a resource system like that. It was cool, but unrealistic.

Just list them in your nation thread and when you make a trade agreement, alter the list accordingly.

Rotaretilbo wrote:...You do realize that there are over 450 territories on the map, right?

So? It will take an hour, sure, but I'm sure BB has spent far more time than that on creating and maintaining this game. It wouldn't have to be done in a single night, either. Hell, I'll do it if you want.

Rotaretilbo wrote:With our current player base, creating an overly complex econ system would not only make BB's job even harder than it already is, but it would probably scare off at least half the players. I don't know about you, but I like it when there are a decent number of active players participating in a game. It makes things a lot more interesting.

1. It isn't overly complicated.
2. What do you mean "participating"? There's no playing going on right now. All they do is drop a ten-word post in a nations diplo thread asking for trade and wait for their ten-word response. There's no RP... no strategy... no thought at all.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I would hardly call tim's unique a copy of mine. It's as much a copy as mine as it is of Bacon's, as the only prerequisite to be a copy is apparently being the same kind of unit, in this case, a tank.

Personally, I disagreed with tim's stat layout, and advised him to go econ or culture, given the kind of country he has stated he wants to be: a scientific one. For an alleged pawn, he certainly wasn't cooperative on that point.

The point is tiny tim is your b****.

Unless Rot is actually my pawn and were are just cleverly concealing it in the reverse.

he will give you 20 lashes tonight, just for saying that

the Latin Republic (Offensive Bias) is now under host control.

Union of ChicagoLand (PiEman) is now under host control.