| TheTiger (White Giant) | Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 11:34 pm 
I agree, this is a great idea. It makes W3C more money, it makes your countries (even the non-secure ones) seem safe, regardless of their military assets. Which makes the game more fun and less worrisome, which motivates more free trial people to pay.
But for it to work, these should be taken into consideration:
1.People need to be able to take over C3's. That way, they could build an empire through war.
2.Without the threat of losing countries to war,W3C could take off the secured mode feature! That would make it much more realistic.
3.The cost of war would have to be less than the money and assets you get, so war would be worthwile.
Consider these and tell me what you think! |
| Angus88 (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 10:48 am
Wouldn't this just be a different form of looting that the game gods have already removed?
Maybe suggest this for FB only?
I mean we don't really want 2B population countries raping their way all across sim country do we. |
| Michael Morrison (White Giant) | Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 06:01 am
Take away secure more? I don't agree with that option. It took me the better part of a week to learn the interface of this game. And I'm still trying to figure out what some of the functions do. If I wasn't in "secured mode" when I first started, people could as easily take away my money, pop, and assets one at a time, and I wouldn't gotten the point of the game, and would quit right then and there.
I guess I would be worried about TOO much aggression. of course, most of the federations seem to be protectors of people like me, who are trying to learn the game, but still.... |
| Angus88 (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 08:46 am
Feds aren't really world police that they make out I think. They are just looking for a fight, and they want a sense of honor crushing an aggressive opportunist.
To me it seams like the same situation of why the U.S vowels protection of Israel, they don't really care about Israel as much as they care about crushing middle eastern theocrats do they?
Sorry about the real life example thats just my two cents. |
| John R | Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 09:59 pm
Yes, but you are a moron.
Even after many weeks, I'm still trying to understand how this got stuck on your head:
Quote:I mean we don't really want 2B population countries raping their way all across sim country do we.
|
| Michael Morrison (White Giant) | Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 07:31 am
Well, world police or not, I'll still take their protection of my country any day of the week... |
| Angus88 (Little Upsilon) | Friday, August 1, 2008 - 01:40 am
If this imperialism feature were to be implemented, where you could take 10-20% of the population, each time that country invades another country, it population increases by adleast half a mil, given the cash also. After enough pillaging you could achieve extremely high population countries, get a few of these countries to have a war and the winning country would then become unstoppable, and could at will rape its way across sim worlds. Hence my conclusion of "2B population countries raping their way across sim country" |
| JMR32 (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, August 1, 2008 - 04:17 am
Wrong place, I know, but the US "voweled" (?) protection of Israel since it's inception, before the theocrats in the mideast ever came to power. So yes, they care about Israel, many times the only country in the UN to defend them. If you want to continue that aspect of the conversation start a thread in General. That's MY two cents. |
| Angus88 (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 01:46 am
Yeah I'm too ignorant about the issue to be taken seriously. |
| zemon (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 06:42 am
angus, the the fastest way to get out of a hole is to put down the shovel. Thats my two cents
also the reason we defend Israel is because after their persecution by Nazi Germany, we felt the jews needed their own place to call home. So, we being that we are arguably the Biggest Baddest Bastards on the play ground, with the next Biggest Baddest Bastard behind us, we decided to steal some land from a few other people to give the jews a nice water front home, and some weapons courtesy the Biggest Baddest Bastards on the play ground.
Another bit of my two cents.
also i like this idea with some tweaking. |
| Dvd Avins (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 10:20 am
Zemon, in the early days of Israel, it was supported at least as much by the USSR as by the USA.
Further, with the British, who had made conflicting promises to the Arabs and Jews ready to evacuate (because they no longer needed to protect the route to India) there was no sovereign entity to steal from. The Jews had been setting there for 50 years and the Arabs had been there a lot longer but were largely nomadic and didn't hold what westerners would consider legal title to much land.
There was no way to avoid a mess. The U.N. said split the land on terms that were more viable for the proposed Arab state than for Israel. Israel (which didn't actually have that name yet) agreed even though the plan was untenable, because they knew the Arabs were too fired up to agree to the plan and would make war. From the Jews' point of view, at least the plan got the Brits out of the way, and they could deal with the Arabs (whom the British had taken to favoring) separately.
In general, both sides have taken unconscionable actions over the past 100 years, egged on by looking only at the other's outrages without considering how their own actions made the other's not right, but at least comprehensible and human. |
| JMR32 (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 06:58 pm
Angus: I apologize for quoted remark, but I never called you ignorant, nor did I infer you weren't to be taken seriously. Chalk it up to bad day, bad timing.
I just felt that the comments you made would have been better in another section, and unfortunately your opinion of the reason the US supports Israel is WAY off base.
The first modern theocracy in the Middle East was the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, who overthrew the Shah in the late 1970s. The US had been supporting Israel for 30 years at that time.
So it is not even remotely possible that the only reason the US supports Israel is because we hate all the theocrats, and it's one of the issues that push my hot button. Again, I apologize for using your typographical error in an insulting manner. I meant no disrespect. I should have stepped back, gone to another part of the forum, and then returned and responded after I had calmed down. Thanks for your time. |
| Michael Morrison (White Giant) | Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 09:32 pm
One of the reasons we support Israel is because the vast majority or Americans, first of all, is Christian. An even more of a vast majority of politions are Christian. It is a major Chrisitian belief, in these modern times (namely: the 20th century) that any nation, or people, that supports the Jewish state, are justified in God's eyes. In the story of the history of the Jews (The Old Testament) anyone who oppressed the Jews, were eventually compeltely destroyed. Anyone who did not support the Jews when presented with the oppertunity, were, likewise, swept away. After Pope John Paul II came to power, the the Catholic church came to finally recognize the Jews to be their brothers, and defending the Jewish people became a righteous cause.
I, myself, would give my life defending Israel as wholeheartedly in giving my life in defending the US in a "JUSTIFIED" war. If Israel were to be attacked by it's enemies today, I would probably join the US army, or some branch of the services, knowing we would be there to defend that land from foreign invaders. That's just my belief system though, knowing God would look favorably upon that action.
Anyway, this isn't really the thread to be discussing this topic. I will not respond anymore, just wanted to put my 2 cents in lol
A lot of people seem to forget, a good 90% of the conflicts in the middle east have to do with religious beleif systems. The current war in Iraq is almost purely base on oil, though. |
| Pathetic Sheep (White Giant) | Friday, September 12, 2008 - 08:35 am
From the documentation:
"Transfers are not possible if the receiving country has more than 100.000.000 people. Transfers are also not possible if the source country ends up with less than 8.000.000 people."
If any countries get too large they can start suffering from overpopulation stress.
I didn't get the impression Sandhorn was suggesting taking away secure mode. Even if he did suggest that somewhere it is unnecessary. The idea is to get people to voluntarily choose to go to war. If I go to war this weekend and fail horribly I lose everything (which in my case isn't much anyway). With Sandhorn's suggestion, failing horribly means getting set back a few weeks and suffering humiliation and stagnation for a few more weeks. Someone who has been playing for a year will still have 10 months of effort intact.
In some cases losing the military might improve the economy. |
| Gen. Wallace (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 02:32 am
I like it the way it is.
But, you could have the option of what your intents are... Take over, or just war...
Example, I see that your military is getting to big and I don't like it, so I offer you a chance to sell off or I attack. You say no. I attack destroy a lot of your military supplies and weapons, win... I chose to war and won score but not your country... I would also have the option of taking over which could be changed anytime before 3/4 of the war is won...
I don't want 10% of the debt, I just, strongly insisted you now have... |
