| SuperSoldierRCP | Monday, December 1, 2014 - 07:39 pm 
I just wanted to know what everyone thinks.
I was thinking of putting up a vote. That in order to start a federation or be the Chairmen of a Federation that A player must be war level 3.
Also i think we should add Co-Chairmen, Those should be the only two members who should be allowed to suggest changes to Fed rules.(rather then any random member)
I only bring this up because i actively try to recruit new players. Its annoying to have a war level 0-1 players weekly to try to become the federation leader, when they have real risk of war. Or they try to change the rules to where voting takes 99 months voting needing 99% approval.
Opinions? |
| alocien | Monday, December 1, 2014 - 08:09 pm
i do not agree with your 1st, but i agree with your 2nd.
PS. sup SS !!!?!!! |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Tuesday, December 2, 2014 - 04:50 pm
Good, Whats up with you? |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Tuesday, December 2, 2014 - 04:57 pm
Whats everyone's else opinion on the topic?
i would really be interested to hear peoples opinions so i can refine this idea before i put it up to vote?. |
| Letsie Number one | Wednesday, December 3, 2014 - 01:19 am
I strongly disagree.
Economic players should also be able to start a federation.
Pherhaps you should be more selective of the people you invite in your federation. |
| Karrde | Wednesday, December 3, 2014 - 03:12 am
I'm on the fence regarding players be a certain war level in order to be allowed to form a fed, but I like the idea of a co-chairman. I also suggest that feds should be allowed to accomodate more members so they don't have to break into separate groups (east, west, etc). |
| Letsie Number one | Wednesday, December 3, 2014 - 05:32 am
Second the motion for a co chairman. And I disagree with increasing the fed size. In my oppinion they are to large. |
| The_Wicked_Lady | Thursday, December 4, 2014 - 01:00 am
Although I no longer play the game, and while I respect Super's idea and hear his frustration, you can't say that fed leaders have to have a WL3 or above. There are several players below that level now, who have played this game for decades, who choose a peaceful econ game, but certainly are qualified to lead a federation. Anyone in the game should have the ability to build their own federation if only of just their own countries, WL3 or no.
I don't see a need for Co-Chairs really. You can establish these within your group. Also, you can't restrict newer players from voting. That would give ALL the decision power to the leadership with no recourse by the members. |
| Presidium | Thursday, December 4, 2014 - 03:18 am
The Wicked Lady puts it perfectly. The Soviet Federation on KB has its own constitution and elected government. The Soviet fed is the only reason ive stayed on this game really. |
| Lyudmil Vodenicharov | Thursday, December 4, 2014 - 08:54 am
Like most of the peeps here, I disagree that a player must be at war level 3 if they want to start a federation. But I think a co-chairman is a good idea. Only if it's optional.
And please call me T.Wo. |
| Dale Caddy | Friday, December 5, 2014 - 09:01 pm
The difficulty with federations is the ability to find players willing to work together and communicate effectively. I have a Federation and a Common Market made up of only three members, myself, slave country and my brother. I don't know anyone else that plays this game, and every time I log onto the chat it's empty. So, there should be no limit on who can start a Federation, simply because it's so hard to communicate with others players that most have to start their own. |
| James the Fair | Saturday, December 6, 2014 - 09:10 pm
I agree with you Supersoldier on your first one, is that there should be a certain war level requirement in order to start a federation since they are about mutual protection and would make sense for someone with at least some proof of battle/war experience to start one. Rather than seeing hundreds of federations that don't really mean anything and can't even have a chance to declare war on them since their war levels are far too low.
Your second one however, is that having a co-chairman is a good idea, but to only allow the top 2 members to alter the fed rules should be made an alternative option to choose from when you set up a federation. |
| Gabriel Loyola | Sunday, December 7, 2014 - 03:31 am
@Dale Caddy
You got that right about communicating with players. The chat nowadays are empty and I really want to communicate with other players outside my planet. |
| Karrde | Sunday, December 7, 2014 - 04:20 am
The new SC app is supposed to include a chat, so hopefully that will bring more activity. I popped in the chatroom fairly regularly a few months ago (and recently), but it's difficult to access now with my mobile browsers for some reason. If the new app chat works well, I'll certainly use that feature often. |
| Gabriel Loyola | Sunday, December 7, 2014 - 07:22 am
@Karrde
Hmm, alright. Let's see about that then.
Oh yes, I forgot. I'm T.Wo, BTW. |
| Dale Caddy | Sunday, December 7, 2014 - 05:45 pm
What's the app called? Are we talking like an iPhone app? |
| alocien | Sunday, December 7, 2014 - 06:06 pm
Dale, if you go to
" W3C - Simcountry App "
or
" W3C - Game News Nov. 18 "
the app is explained in slightly more detail. |
| Frankie | Saturday, December 13, 2014 - 05:24 pm
I agree with both since there ARE so many feds that have few to no players capable of fighting a war while they ironically build up air defense.. its annoying. and of course a co-chairman sounds interesting |
