| Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:16 pm |
The issue for both of us I think is inertia. Its hard to get up and go when things are so close to being what wed both want, and the getting up and going entails so much work.
I will do my best to liberate both of us.
| Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:37 pm |
I strongly agree . At the end of the day, advanced nations have a huge advantage over less advanced in military equipment... (In this game that would be education etc i guess).
But at the moment every nation can run an army using "top of the range: equipment. Even if half their population cant read. Bombers with thousands of miles of range, and nuclear weapons!! can be built or bought by anyone and everyone. This is akin to iraq just buying a pile of stealth bombers and a few nukes before the war.
The advantages in this game (warwise) of a strong economy, and education / supply (read transport) system are limited. Purchases, well contracts get around that unless you have a truly atrocious country. Proffesionals (mlm) well worker trades get around that. Financial index in the war calculation:/..has some effect i guess.
Going to full scale war doesnt affect production of our factories at all (unless they are bombed), or the welfare rating the morale of troops, or a host of things that would be cool.
I dont think adding such factors would detract from warfare. It would make it more interesting. Armies would have different structures depending on the edu or welfare choices the player had made.
It just seems a lot more..realistic than just being able to sign a contract and have 1000 "special forces" or 10k "navy fighter planes" magically appear. Things such as special forces SHOULD be very powerfull. But they should also take a lot of resources to train and produce. Theres a reason why few nations have good special forces, and why their numbers are so low....
If the proper preperation was required to build these things btw (think of nuke subs as another example for instance). I would have no problems whatsoever with limits going completely ;p
| Friday, December 12, 2003 - 01:00 pm |
at the moment elle it doesnt matter if you makea million special force apear out of nowhere, youll still lose an offensive war. No matter waht the limits actualyl are, as long as they persist this will always be so.
I was thinking about contracts. I meant to out that bit in my marahton post im writing, but I think the onyl problem is when ceo stockpiles are used in countries with poor economies. Supplying yourself in developed coutnries with large amounts of wepaons per month is all well and good, but taking a c3 and moving in massive numbers of weapns via contract in one month is rather silly (Purchases, well contracts get around that unless you have a truly atrocious country.). It is also hard to counter without using similar tactics. While that is 'OK' tactically, i dont think its needed or adds that much while being unrealistic and kinda cruddy.
I like the idea of CEo only players being able to meddle in war though the use of war corporations. Similar things happen in reality. now, if onyl they could be sold at market quality or higehr, CEOs could actually thrive in the war business...
Making countries unable to accept contracts without having a FI of at least 100 should prevent it. Dont get me wrong, I hate 'cludges' like that too, but it should ahve the desired effect. Youd probaly want it higher, but I hate running even my own develpoed coutnries above that index. A c3 or crappy country might be able to acept a very few contracts before crumbling, limiting large arms deals to strong countries. Lots of players dont run at high FIs, but they uually arent losing money either. C3s usually are. maybe a slightly higher limit (100-120) would be efective as well, but i woudlnt suggest anything higher than that.
Alternately, 'shelf life' of trained units culd be introduced.
agree with all your points of course. erehwon and I talked about similar things at lenth. I hear echoes of my converation with you in your post.
For the record, no one in this server has ever been threatended by anyone running a 'crappy' country economy and focusing only on war. I think that already only counties with very strong economies can fight efefctively - with the exception of the crappy country taken and pumped full of contracts, which I agree should be changed. Last I looked my orignial trasnfer country was second only in GDP to jinson, and 2 of my countries make more income than all but a fwe countries, despite massive differences in loan income (with myself having less of it).
| Friday, December 12, 2003 - 01:04 pm |
Im no programmer but some things even if they are a good idea may be hard to program into the game. Complex games can be good but even basic games have strategy, and to suggest the rich nations get rewarded during war time just makes me think the former Allied Forces want to be the international police again. For a new player to make it to the top (assuming they even know what they are doing) it will take months, im the type of player that wants to get straight into a game. Good or evil i would like to see new players make their mark on the game.
| Friday, December 12, 2003 - 01:13 pm |
matt ill answer more fully on monday, got a very full day today and extremely busy weekend ;<
but just to say, i wasnt aiming the comments about "poor countries" at anyone in particular. I know u have made revolutionary countries before.
I guess the differences of opinion between people boils down to how much "nation building" they feel is required before they can start aquiring nuke subs etc . Whereas im prolly one extreme thinking people should have to work at their country before becoming nuke powers etc and if they cant be bothered to, then tough . The other extreme would be someone who sees the country as a mere tool for outputting military units and accepting contracts.
Yes accept your POV on ceos meddling in wars btw
| Friday, December 12, 2003 - 01:14 pm |
In fact im not the richest president around but i have been playing for a while and to be honest if i were beaten by a 1 country empire , not only would i be embarassed i would think i deserve to lose for being hopeless.
| Friday, December 12, 2003 - 01:59 pm |
Please excuse my crude and oversimplistic analysis, but a lot of what I'm reading recently sounds like "mememememememe". Not what would be best for new players and the game itself.
| Friday, December 12, 2003 - 02:23 pm |
How would having a more complicated relationship between building an armed forces, training it etc and developing a countries infrastructure. And the extra decision making that would entail be less interesting for new players matty?...assuming any of it was possible anyway
| Friday, December 12, 2003 - 02:48 pm |
When players are competing online they need to be on an even playing field, alot of superpowers in gr have proved they cannot be trusted with their power. To use an example my old empire was defeated (by a bug) by the gr superpowers, i had 4, 6 tril countries and a 20tril country what weapons does that give me in your plan Almoth? just defence so i dont get to shoot back? please make your suggestion sound fair to me.