| Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:26 am |
1. It would be very difficult to reproduce anything like my current empire. The difficulty stems partly from differences in the game between then and now. But it's also because my empire is the result of regular economic tweaking. I run things differently than others and it pays off. But the effort was enormous.
2. Running new countries and fixing them is actually fun. But the time required to do it right is enormous and I don't have it.
3. I don't like the way the game is heading.
4. I'm not dead yet. :o)
| Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:37 am |
Note that I said "if"
Fixing and running only a single or a few nwe countries is indeed fun, for me much more fun then havina n existing one.
As youve already read at lenght, im very pleaed with 'the way the game is heading' , and am most curious as to the exact nature of your thoughts.
If it would not cause enormous 'political' problems and a return to the stifled gameplay which I feel all but killed the game, id offer you my empire ...again, if we did win. The point may well be moot. :P
I was trying to colect a few very good coutnris for this purpose alone, but faith took advantage of my focus elsewhere
| Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:41 am |
About the Peaceful Country notion, I personally think that it is an awful idea. But then this is a game and not a simulation (I think I read that somewhere else).
Rather than add more layers of silliness, the war system and it's relation to socio-economic elements need to be fixed. I have made innumerable suggestions in this regard, and a few have actually been considered by the game designers but not put into effect.
There are plenty of ways to make war in this game more challenging and interesting without warping things farther. Without going into all the details, here are a few ideas that could be combined with lifting the unrealistic weapons attack limits:
1. Limited Intelligence. Why the hell do we know where every last enemy unit is all the time? This one should be a no brainer and putting it into effect would add an interesting layer to the game (look deep in the Suggestions Thread for this one - there are lots of good details).
2. Fix the freaking ranges! Units are way too effective from far away than they should be for game and for reality terms. Or, add a command and control factor, based partly on relevant country indices, that would reduce the number of units participating in any attack the farther the range is as a proportion of max range.
3. Reward good economic management in wartime with more than increased purchasing power, e.g., welfare effects on war results (damage?), health effects on casualties, education effects on weapons effectivenss (technology should be key, but it has no effect and strong education is even washed out of the mix of workers employed by the military which is just plain wrong - it should have some effect).
4. War effects on economy: Interest rates go up, pup! War should use resources well beyond those needed to build units - units ought to use resources like gasoline, food, clothing, etc. They could use less in peacetime, more in wartime generally, and much more every time they are used! This too should be a no-brainer! Suggestions have been made on this topic too.
I have only begun to scrape the surface. But it goes to show that I think that the proposed new rules are going in completely the wrong direction.
| Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:15 pm |
...because it adds another unrealistic limit(s)?
It wont surprise you to hear that I agree with every one of your sugegstions, and have even echoed them (or suggested them earlier in some csaes).
But it is a game, and protecting new and weak players and thsoe who truly do not wish to be involved in any war seems necessary to me.
Moreover, I look at it as a kind of 'deal' - a way to make everyone happy in their own respective ways.
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 06:49 am |
I agree war should reduce the other resources of the country involved. I especially like the increased interest rate idea and of course the use of gasoline and other resources in troop movements. Maybe there could be a "shipping /re-allocation cost implemted for the mass movements of troops and weapons?
| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 11:31 pm |
If anyone wants this 35 Trillion dollar country say so now or I'm deregging it.