| James the Fair | Tuesday, April 9, 2013 - 02:22 pm 
I think the 25 countries limit for federations should be replaced by a ?? players limit where 1 player and their empire on a world, no matter how big it is. Would only be allowed to be in 1 fed, not multiple feds. At least this way we would properly know who they have alligience to. Some of my ideas would be like this....
When you leave a fed, all your other countries in your empire will leave at the same time. The same works for the opposite when you are joining a fed.
You will able to have as many countries as you like when you're in a fed. Which means you could have the potential to build a big huge fed between your fedmates. However a player limit would be imposed to stop any fed from becoming overly too powerful.
When you C3 raid a country, or simply conquering it for yourself, it will automatically become part of the fed you are in. |
| Jark Valiga | Thursday, April 11, 2013 - 01:31 am
makes sense |
| Laguna | Thursday, April 11, 2013 - 03:01 pm
+1 |
| Jack | Thursday, April 11, 2013 - 04:13 pm
Your proposal appears to make it mandatory that all of my countries belong to the same fed or have to belong to a fed at all. I should be able to join and quit any feds I want to with whatever countries I want to whenever I want to. That should be my choice and it seems like you are removing my choices. That I disagree with.
I know the allegiance of my countries and what feds my fed mates countries belong to. Not an issue. Sorry you had the problem with your former fed hanging you out to dry but we all don't have a loyalty problem in our feds.
I have no issue with reasonably increasing the number of countries (not players) in a fed but it must have a cap. Otherwise this is a poor suggestion. |
| James the Fair | Thursday, April 11, 2013 - 04:37 pm
Jack, Jackseptic is it? Well you would say that would'nt you? being a member of at least 4 different feds, but why? that does'nt make any sense. I mean if you're going to go to war with someone, all the rest of your countries in your empire should be put at risk as well, besides putting them into different feds just to deter the attackers from attacking your other countries that are in those other feds.
(Quote)
"Sorry you had the problem with your former fed hanging you out to dry but we all don't have a loyalty problem in our feds."
Whats this got to do with what i'm discussing here of what happened to me in that fed? I'm talking about that you should have your empire in one fed only as i've been thinking about this idea LONG before I went to war with Serpent. So don't drag that into it in order to justify yourself on this page.
Yet you talk about there should be a cap on the number of countries in a fed, well i'm afraid i'm going to have to disagree you there. As I don't think there should be since there is a kind of a cap anyway by having a large number countries in your empire, which is the very high government costs you have across your entire empire if you hold too many countries. So I can't see feds getting overly too powerful anyway with that being enforced. |
| Christos | Friday, April 12, 2013 - 01:31 am
I agree with Jack. Federations after all can be allied with each other and, anyway, it's generally known which feds support each other or are branches of one another. But if they have no country limit, we could be looking at giant feds of 100 or even 200 countries. This would perhaps change the multipolar and pluralistic nature of this game, which is part of its appeal (at least to me). The current structure is not bad although it could do with a slight increase to let's say 30-35 countries per Fed. |
| Mike G | Friday, April 12, 2013 - 01:48 am
I agree with Jack and Christos, but the other suggestions are good |
| Laguna | Friday, April 12, 2013 - 10:35 am
No, players should not belong to multiple federations. In fact, with player membership, they can't.
Country membership is just a vestige from another time. |
| James the Fair | Friday, April 12, 2013 - 12:59 pm
It would be the same as the US being a part of NATO and WARSAW PACT (the soviet alliance from the cold war) at the same time. You can't have it both ways on this game, it needs to be more realistic.
However what Christos said is true. Federations can be allied with each other as it is generally known as a fact of which branches belong to which feds, even I know that. I do personally think though in order to link these federations more, a peace treaty should be signed or renewed often between the 2 feds, just like how the way peace treaties can be signed between countries. It does'nt mean they would have each others protection though.
If it really was'nt Jackseptic who did'nt post that, I would like to make a formal apology. |
| Jack | Friday, April 12, 2013 - 03:26 pm
I am not Jackseptic although I wish I had his ability and skill level. I am just Jack.
I still say that federation membership in one or more feds or lack of membership is my choice. There are reasons to belong to more than one federation. My reasons do not have to make sense to you. My countries - my choices.
As for the reference to your former fed - sorry I hit a nerve but it was you who made multiple public statements in the forum about how they failed to assist you. I agree that they were completely wrong. It just seems that since then you have repeatedly proposed suggestions aimed at righting that wrong when it wasn't the game rules that caused the problem but your former fed mates failing to live up to their obligation.
And as for your real life example given about it being unrealistic if the United States belonged to more than one alliance - yes it would be if we joined an enemy alliance - but you need to study up a little on this and you would find that the US does belong to more than one alliance and has for many years. All of our allies are not in Europe - we have allies and interests throughout the world. NATO just gets all the attention but we do belong to other alliances.
Besides it is a game and the rules are the realism in the game world. |
| Alyan Locien | Friday, April 12, 2013 - 05:06 pm
I do not agree with james here.If i have 3 nations, i should be able to join 3 Fed's. If one of the fed's do not agree that i am in another, they can look at the countries, see what fed its in, then inform me they do not agree and that i either need to pick one or the other.
James, look at it this way. the USA is in both UN, and NATO. They both can been see as two diff feds.
If the USA decides to join the BLOCK, or as you say the warsaw pact. Then it is up to the UN/NATO to notice thus and complain to the USA about it. |
| James the Fair | Friday, April 12, 2013 - 05:15 pm
(Quote)
"As for the reference to your former fed - sorry I hit a nerve but it was you who made multiple public statements in the forum about how they failed to assist you. I agree that they were completely wrong. It just seems that since then you have repeatedly proposed suggestions aimed at righting that wrong when it wasn't the game rules that caused the problem but your former fed mates failing to live up to their obligation."
Here we go again, this has got nothing to do with what i'm suggesting on this page, i've been over that for a long time now, I only made one statement about that, not multiple ones. At least i've shown that I have guts unlike the 90% of all players who play this game and act like a big man when really they ar'nt. Also since you're not Jackseptic, who are you? and what planet are you on?
I already know about the United States being in more than one alliance in real life, thats how they control the world today, especially since the Soviet Union collapsed. Well I really thought it would be easier to be allied to just 1 federation only as it is a game after all like you say.
However I believe you win this argument as I can see how how much realism this game has actually took from the real world in order to make this game work. |
| James the Fair | Friday, April 12, 2013 - 05:19 pm
(Quote)
"If the USA decides to join the BLOCK, or as you say the warsaw pact. Then it is up to the UN/NATO to notice thus and complain to the USA about it."
Maybe in this game his/her fellow fed members should be notified through a message to say that one of his/her countries in that empire has joined another fed, or something to that extent.
But I do strongly believe that all the countries in your empire, (not federation) should assist each other in defence automatically in times of war, even if they're all in different federations. |
| Jackseptic | Friday, April 12, 2013 - 06:12 pm
i think the nays have it  and im not trying to protect anything by being in a couple feds i have fighters in every fed im in ,ready to fight for that fed. its all perspective james so settle down why dont you. |
| Alyan Locien | Friday, April 12, 2013 - 06:23 pm
When you have more then one country ( empire ) the game treats them as nation-states. though they all belong to you ( the nation ) they are thur own .gov, and as such are able to join thur own fed's CM's as an independent state.
As a leader/member of a fed, it is your duty to inquiry all other members and see if thur other states are in another fed or not, and react to thus as you ( the fed ) see's fit. It is not the games "job" to inform you of such. It is yours as a fed leader/member. Even games require you to do homework once in a while. :-/ |
| James the Fair | Friday, April 12, 2013 - 10:02 pm
I think I probularly will settle down now Jack, maybe the idea of being in several feds with your countries is'nt a bad idea after all.
(Quote)
"When you have more then one country ( empire ) the game treats them as nation-states. though they all belong to you ( the nation ) they are thur own .gov, and as such are able to join thur own fed's CM's as an independent state."
I understand how that works, but the question I want to ask is. Would my nation states defend each other in my empire without putting them into the same fed? |
| Alyan Locien | Friday, April 12, 2013 - 10:48 pm
That Is a damn good question. Being as they are all under you ( the nation ) they should indeed come to your defense no matter what fed they are in. ( though if state A, is under attack and state B comes to its defense, state B's fed will NOT, unless state B get attacked them self. |
| King Hezekiah II | Sunday, April 14, 2013 - 11:12 pm
Hello NLUO. My goodness. You all are discussing things the NLUO's structure provides... |
| Jack | Monday, April 15, 2013 - 01:16 am
I can't speak for everyone else in this thread but NONE of what I discussed had anything to do with the nluo or anything it provides. What we were discussing was something that actually exists and that matters. Therefore nothing about the nluo. |
| King Hezekiah II | Monday, April 15, 2013 - 02:42 am
The NLUO exists and surely matters, or this game would suck and be boring. Where was this game before the NLUO. A boring dusty click the button game. Everyone in this thread was NLUO minus Laguna MikeG, and You. |
| Christos | Monday, April 15, 2013 - 11:36 am
And me. |
| Jack | Monday, April 15, 2013 - 03:17 pm
All hail hez the man who saved SimCountry by himself.
This had been a serious discussion on an important topic that had actually been completed. Then here comes hez to twist yet another topic into an opportunity to sing his own praises and to sell his magic elixir that cures everything that is wrong in SC. Perhaps a better place for your posts would be under nluo and other fairy tales. The end. |
| Scarlet | Friday, April 26, 2013 - 06:04 am
I support federations having more than 25 members and player/empire-based (rather than country-based) membership in federations. |
| XON Xyooj | Saturday, August 17, 2013 - 03:45 am
don't want limitations
though being in many feds with many countries could mean you having to go to wars with your own countries? |
| Star Foth | Sunday, August 25, 2013 - 08:14 am
Put it up for general voting proposals! |
| John Martinez | Sunday, August 25, 2013 - 03:07 pm
lol hez says NLUO solves this problem, that's cause just like some other feds they have branches. Every Federation can open a branch but it's not as fun cause everyone can't communicate all at once. I agree to a raised limit at least double or triple the current limit. |
