Combination of countries

Hello All,

I see a lot of new improvements happening. I am one who comes and goes from the game over several years so please correct me if this has been brought up lately. With the conquering of new countries why can they not be treated as a new state for the conquering country? The territories can still be segregated on the regional map, wars could be fought for specific regions but all country management would fall under one country name. It would make life easier for the person running the country. There could still be all the issues such as rebellions or what not that come with running a large empire but they would just be considered states under the one country name.

I've been barking up that tree for years. My solution is a little inverted than your's. Making it difficult to manage empires is the GM's aim. I've pretty much handled it knowing that won't change. However, I would like to see the appearance of borders merge, purely for aesthetic purposes. Like a view of the world map would show a borderless empire, with maybe the name and/or flag superimposed over it to distinguish from other countries and empires. The map always looks bland to me; there's no story to it, no geopolitical view, or historical dialogue. The owner of each country within an empire would still manage each one separate like always because the GM wanted it that way. But having the unified looking map, that would be sweet.

2nd the merging of borders. Just because it would look a lot better.

Thank you

+1

We had many requests for the merger of countries and we have explained many times that this is impossible.

The reason is indeed, to limit the size of empires.
You cannot manage many countries and it is much better to have fewer countries with a huge population than many small ones. In this way you get very powerful empires with few countries.

This is by design and will stay like this.

In the real world, countries in empires never merged.
They were ruled separately but the Romans, the Greeks, etc.

Also peaceful empires never merged.
The US has 50 states and there is no chance they will change this structure.

....the United States is a single country

I know.
Why don't they remove state borders, state governors, senate and administrations?

Depends on which point of history we look at. Some smaller states were conjoined with others, while some states partitioned; there is no single reason to explain each scenario. The US expanded, conquered, purchased, etc. eventually solidifying into what it is today. However, like any other country, you would need a dissemination of leadership to help maintain each area. The US is not an empire of 50 states; it is a unified federal republic. You could travel from Florida all the way to California; you can ask them what is their country, they would all reply, the USA (or just America for short). Nobody identifies by their state first.

*the national anthem begins...*

lol

It was suggested here that the whole structure of the game stays the same. You keep the slaves as it is right now, you keep the interface as it is. The only thing I ask for is a different aperance on the map. Nothing more.

It would just look better if there are no black lines running in my empire and if it would just be a big 'blob' instead of a lot of mini blobs.

The downside is that it makes piking a war target a little bit more work. (You would have to click throug the list) but it would just look better...

I could see the argument on both sides. I do understand the need for the game to remain stead and follow original design as it has worked so well. If it works well why change. On the other hand as the underlying statement of defense seems that no countries really merge, I think this may be a little flawed as the fact that each state by law must adhere to the larger federal governmental laws. At least the ones appointed to the Federal government given to them under the constitutions. Point being that even the multiple states or countries in historical empires did fall under one law. I was merely suggesting that centralized law would help game play. There could still be difficulties in place to prevent large small country empires. Thoughts?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The US has 50 states and there is no chance they will change this structure.<!-/Quote-!>

I'm one for Jefferson state, the double cross, and thursday secession.

we will secede this Thursday, and every Thursday here after, until our demands are met!!!!

http://www.opb.org/news/article/pacific-northwest-secession-state-of-jefferson-cascadia/

Siskiyou County, Mt Shasta, Crater lake

I'm ofcourse from the heart of Jefferson state,

I must have missed that news.

+1 Letsie,

My current suggestion is more to do about the aesthetics, or appearances of how our empires look on the map. It's so dull looking. I guess a creative way of painting a globe/map to add some visual appeal to the game. On real maps we see names of countries, and then overlaying empire names. Or in the case of the US, it's just the US but zooming in you would see individual states. Or on some countries, different provinces, which is the case for even smaller RL countries. I'm used to the clicking in and out and all of the other processes for managing economies, etc; I'm not reverting back to the old discussion without fully considering what I had been suggesting recently (better looking maps).

The game is called Simcountry not SimEmpire

Yes, very good. You read the name of the game.

JWUrton that is a common misconception.

Each of the 50 States is a sovereign entity. The Federal government can compel the individual states to pass laws in line with Federal Law however, while most do, it cannot make them.

Medical marijuana is a prime example, several states have chosen to tell the Federal Government to "piss off". It's still against Federal law and in States such as California and Colorado people are finding out, you'd better have a strong Governor and county Sheriff's if you are going to do that.

Yankee, you are wrong. The federal government can compel and make states follow federal law and does it all the time. Federal law is supreme per the constitution and that was settled in the Civil War. When the southern states seceded, the federal government intervened, declared a rebellion and put it down. Southern secessionist leaders were branded traitors and arrested after the war.
After the Supreme Court labelled "separate but equal" as unconstitutional in "Brown Vs. The Board of Education", southern states again refused to follow federal dictate and allow the integration of public schools. That was settled when federal troops were sent to the states to force the integration.
These are extreme examples. But they prove the point. The federal government usually uses a slightly carrot and mostly stick approach to states that object to federal mandates. The U.S. government routinely threatens to cut off funding to states that do not implement mandates. However this depends on the mandate and the political party in power. This is the reason most, if not all states comply with federal law.
Other examples of the infinite Federal prowess; the government controls coastal waterways and determines which ones. They own public lands within the states and can declare National Parks through the Department of Interior. They routinely tell states where drilling can and can't occur. EPA rules must and are followed, I can go one and one with the rules many states don't like but know they must constitutionally follow, and do.
In the case of the marijuana laws, the Congress, passed a law that left it up to the discretion of Department of Justice to determine whether or not to enforce drug interdiction laws regarding marijuana. Thus leaving it up to the political whims of whatever administration is in charge. The Obama administration chose not to intervene DIRECTLY in the sales within the individual state. However, the current Jeff Sessions run Dept. of Justice has indicated a willingness to get tougher against the states that allow the cultivation of marijuana. These "sovereign" states, as you call them, do not sell marijuana across state lines because it is not permitted by the feds. Further, profits derived from these sales are not transmitted through the U.S. Federal Reserve. For example, you can't wire funds derived from these purchases because they are still considered illicit.
The term "sovereign" is an antiquated term that may have been appropriate under the old "Confederation of States", but that sovereignty was abandoned when the states adopted the U.S.Constitution. The Constitution is clear. Federal law is supreme and can't be nullified. The feds can walk right into Colorado any time and shut down and destroy the marijuana farms any time they want and I can assure you, Colorado would do nothing about it. There is no such thing as a sovereign state. We are one country made up of 50 regions we decided to continue to call "states". However, the Supreme Court routinely overturns state laws not in keeping with federal laws deemed constitutional. So much for your "sovereign" state.

I feel like the point of the suggestions are being missed in the details

No I'm not wrong, the Federal Government's power is absolute in the area's where it has Jurisdiction however those areas are limited.

I don't know where you live however, I can assure you MY state, (and any state I've ever lived in) has it's own constitution. As far as the U.S. Constitution and the Federal government are concerned, each state will be a constitutional form of government.

That's another issue .. Gay Marriage, Marriage has always been defined and regulated by the State. If you don't believe that, ask anyone who's ever gotten a divorce with kids involved. From that point on, they are wards of the State. You wanna move out of that State with kids after a divorce, you better get a Judge's consent.

Departments like the EPA (Mute point) derive their power from several obscure rulings such as Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). The Federal Government has seized power it was never granted and couldn't be granted to it by the States anyway. The U.S. Constitution is rather specific.

The Federal Government's place where interstate commerce is concerned is absolute. So of course those states do not sell across their lines. Additionally you cannot deposit any of the proceeds from the sale of medical marijuana in any federally insured bank it makes no difference if that money crosses a state line or not. Which is one of the reasons you are seeing banks starting up that are not federally insured although I fail to see how that is going to help since the proceeds can still be seized if they cross a state line. I guess it's a short term solution to storing it in your garage.

And no, Colorado does not have the ability to stop a military intervention by the Federal Government. Legally however, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction. But you never know, if they make enough off the proceeds of medical marijuana, the matching "federal dollars" carrot may not seen so enticing either.

The simple fact of the matter is our Civil War was fought over States Rights. The trigger at the time was the foul institution of Slavery.

If there is ever another one, it could be over things like Marijuana, gay marriage or firearm regulations. Many states on one issue or another are repealing their version "compelled" by the Federal Government

Could be 150-200 years from now we'll be rioting and tearing down statues of Cheech Marin, Tommy Chong, Willie Nelson and banning the LGBT flag.

I agree with Yankee.

"As far as the U.S. Constitution and the Federal government are concerned, each state will be a constitutional form of government."

Every state constitution is subservient to the federal U.S. constitution. Sure, a state can create their own laws, but they can't create laws that conflict with federal law and the constitution. An example would be Gerrymandering. As has been reported widely, Republican run states have Gerrymandered to an extreme. States have a right to create their own districts. However, these gerrymandered districts have been challenged in federal court and the Republican states have lost almost every time. The point being not who won or lost but who got to decide. The federal government did. Who was the true sovereign body?

"Marriage has always been defined and regulated by the State."

Wrong again. States can define marriage so long as the federal constitution allows it. In the past there were state laws that did not recognize marriage between different races. The federal courts struck it down and those rulings became the law of the land. So was it true with marriage between same sex couples. Who was the true sovereign body?

"Departments like the EPA (Mute point) derive their power from several obscure rulings such as Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). The Federal Government has seized power it was never granted and couldn't be granted to it by the States anyway."

See what I mean? The Federal courts ruled and the government has the power. You proved my point exactly. Who was the true sovereign body?

"And no, Colorado does not have the ability to stop a military intervention by the Federal Government. Legally however, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction."

The government has total jurisdiction, but as I pointed out in my first posting, the Congress has CHOSEN to leave it to the discretion of the ruling administration to enforce rather than mandating the enforcement.

"The simple fact of the matter is our Civil War was fought over States Rights. The trigger at the time was the foul institution of Slavery."

That is the tired old antebellum argument that has been discredited over and over again. The slaves states never lost their then constitutional right to allow men to own slaves within their borders. President Lincoln and the Republicans had no power to take away that right from them. Lincoln himself was clear in stating he had no intention of ending the "peculiar institution". It would have taken a constitutional amendment. Rather, the Republicans stated goal was to stop its expansion to new states made up from the territories at the time. Southern leaders at the time made it plain through writings, speeches and their own constitution, that the right to allow slavery should continue in perpetuity and was the reason for secession. The southern gentry knew, that at some point, as more free states were created, the normal constitutional process would play out and slavery would be outlawed by amendment. Instead of dealing with the reality of the changing political climate and accepting the perfectly legitimate constitutional changes to come, they refused to accept the outcome of a lawful presidential election and chose treason in defense of immoral bondage of other human beings. However, as they learned the hard way, seceding is "not good for ones constitution". As we know, in the end, the federal government was the sovereign body.

And all this started because I wanted pretier lines on my map...

Pretty much