Independent/Protectorate status idea

I have thought of yet another idea that could work as I believe this one would have its benefits and flaws, but no players on this game would be fully safe which will mean no war levels. You will either have an 'Independent' status or a 'Protectorate' status and my idea would work like this.

Protectorate......

Protectorates are players who are under the protection of an independent player who will serve as your protector. The only way you can do this, is by asking for his protection. The advantage of this, is that your countries will never be attacked or invaded by other aggressive players which is just like the secured mode we have now. The disadvantage of this however, is that you will not have the ability to attack other players directly.

* To be a protectorate, in order to be protected from war, just send a message to an appropiate independent player who will hopefully accept you as one of his protectorates. Also make sure you do not own anymore than 4 countries. The reason for this limit, is so that powerful empires do not get protected by other powerful empires.

* Just like secured mode, you cannot declare war on other players.

* As a protectorate you cannot expand your empire out anymore than the 4 countries limit.

* You can decide to be an independent again at any time you like.

* You can still invade and conquer C3 countries while being a protectorate.

* Be aware of who you choose as your protector, because if he loses one of his countries of who you you have protection with, you will lose your protected status and be an independent again.

* If you are involved in a federation war you can only assist in defence.

* You will have to pay a variable rate in SC$ every game month from your country to your protector.


Independent.......

Independents are players who are independent from everyone else, just like having no war levels at all. The advantage of this is that you are free to declare war on anybody who is independent. The disadvantage of this though, is that you cannot declare war on anybody who is a protectorate.

* An independent will have the ability to declare war on other players who are also independent.

* You cannot declare war on any protectorates.

* If you invade and conquer an independent who has a few protectorates, those protectorates under him will gain full independence from him.

* If you have any protectorates, they can leave your protection anytime they like.

* If you are involved in a federation war you can only attack other independents.

* If you have a few protectorates, you will earn a variable income in SC$ per game month for your country from each of your protectorates.

New features......

To make sure unfair wars are not rampant, a beginner or weak country who cannot get any protection from any powerful players for whatever reason, such as powerful empires attacking very weak countries, depending on their military power, the aggressors should be charged a substantial amount of gold coins for declaring war on them.

Also to make war harder for the attacker, I think an overall empire war index could be introduced as well while trying to conquer one of his countries.

Interesting. I would add, if you choose to serve as a "protector", you should not be able to purchase war protection and you must have some minimum empire size, maybe 6+ countries. If the "protector" falls below this size, then they are no longer a protector. The protection can also be cancelled at any time by either party.

The "protected" should pay 5 gold coins to the game to setup this protection per country "protected". The SC$ amount should be $100m/million pop/month or $1B for 10 million, $2B for 20, and so on paid to the "protector".

Maybe this can replace war level limitations on declarations and this can lead to the planned cost increases for traditional war protection.

By the way, I disagree with charging an attacker gold coins as well as an "empire war index". There should also be a delay between losing your protector and gaining a new one regardless of the cause. Perhaps one game year.

I do think that with the gold coins potentially introduced into the system with this protection system, a bounty system could be introduced. Say if an player is able to remove "protector" status from another player, half the gold coins paid to the game by the "protected" of that protector is paid to the player that broke protection.

Example:

Player A is a protector. 20 countries have paid the 5 gold coins fee to be protected since player A became a protector, a total of 100 gold coins. The countries do not necessarily need to be currently protected (they could have been dropped by the protected or the protector) but the gold coins must have been paid at some point and no one has yet collected a bounty.

Player B attacks player A and reduces his holdings to under 6 countries removing player A's "protector" status. Player B is rewarded 50 gold coins.

There can also be a bounty board the keeps track of the highest bounties available.

My "charging attackers gold coins" and the "empire war index" idea were only suggestions that I wasn't too serious about and would probulary make the game too hard.

However I don't understand why the "protected" countries should pay 5 gold coins to the game as this is more or less the same as paying the game for "war protection" like we have now. Which means they will not need their protectors.

(Quote)

* To be a protectorate, in order to be protected from war, just send a message to an appropiate independent player who will hopefully accept you as one of his protectorates. Also make sure you do not own anymore than 4 countries. The reason for this limit, is so that powerful empires do not get protected by other powerful empires.

..........................................

This is why you do not need to pay 5 gold coins per country to be protected since you cannot expand anymore than 4 countries if you have at least 1 of your countries "protected" by a protector. You would have to have none of your countries protected, in order to expand more than 4 countries.

(Your quote)

The SC$ amount should be $100m/million pop/month or $1B for 10 million, $2B for 20, and so on paid to the "protector".

.......................................

I absolutely agree with you that a fee at this amount should be paid on depending on your population size.

Also I like your idea of a bounty system which would be a nice addition to encourage other independent players to attack the protectors of other countries in order to break that protection that the protectorates have with that protector which would make them independent again, and like you say, there should be a delay when something like this happens.

A one time 5 gold coin fee is a bargain over paying continuous war protection which is 2 gold coins/day (and could be increasing). It provides incentive to the developers to implement the change and provides the gold coins that could fund the bounty system. I think it is a fair alternative to a more expensive war protection system until you can furnish your own defense.

I see the goals as not removing war from game play but adding incentives for more competitive warfare. This should replace war level restrictions on war declarations beyond protection for the first two levels or, at least, protectors should be able to receive war declaration from any non-protected country.

I feel that paying the 5 gold coins all at once to the GMs for one of your countries to be protected by a protector could put off a lot of players, if not most of them from seeking protection with them. However if 1 gold coin was paid by the 'protected' to the 'protector' each real month instead, as I believe it could work since the protector would be gaining more than just SC$ cash every game month. Although obviously there would be a limit to how many 'protectorates' a 'protector' can hold. For example.... 25 protectorates = 25 gold coins per real month for the protector.

I have also thought of another idea that in order to be a protector, the requirements you would need to set it up and the effects it could have, would be something like this.

Protector.....

* To be a protector, you would have to own at least, for example, 5 countries or above.

* To setup one of your own countries to be a protector, do it in the same way you setup federations.

* A new page list of Protectors would be available to view in just the same way federations are.

* You may have to pay the GMs in the form of gold coins to setup one of your countries to be a protector.

My estimates are that a minimum defense costs around $5T in ammo and weapons just to setup. As was said, traditional war protection costs 2 gold coins per day. War level 3 is not a game level requirement until game level 6 which rewards 90 gold coins. I think a one-time setup of 5 gold coins is a bargain and may even be too low. Protectors have the burden of paying for defense and should not have a gold coin cost for being a protector.

I agree with a minimum protector country account. I would say 6 as a minimum is a good number. For purposes of losing protector status, in addition to losing the country count, I would also suggest the protection be tied to a specific protector country. This would prevent using raiding, as a tool alone, to be invulnerable to losing protector status and give bounty seekers two ways to collect. Reduce country count under 6 or to take the specific country. Remember, I already suggested protectors not be allowed to purchase traditional war protection.

don't think i want a protector, but i'm willing to put a warlord on retainer, with liquidation damage insurance by the warlord. a contract that is enforceable by game parameters.

it be like having a security guard company
if the guards fail in their duties as per contract terms, then the company pays for all the damages of my properties.

Maybe it shouldn't cost any gold coins to set up a protector since he is taking a risk. However this is why I think the gold coins that is paid by the protected needs to go to the protectors instead of the game since the protectors will be taking a great risk in protecting them from other aggressive players. Also just like you said XON, it's like having a security guard company.

If we are to attract players to setup protectors, we would need to make incentives and rewards for them to do so.

Security guard companies are not insurance companies.