Printable View
I looked at them all, and I did think about Risk beforehand (talked to pr00t about it before I made this thread, I think...), but I decided that I don't want luck to have anything to do with it. It would be very unfair if someone had their nation completely die out on them purely due to bad luck, particularly if their nation was one of the well thought out ones.
Risk style eh. I've never played risk, but, as stated before, I don't have any intention of being part of any wars or revolts.
just to get a grasp of things could you post how the risk thing would work, or a link to it please? ^_^ thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
I'd say it's pretty damn rare that wars lead to TOTAL ANNIHILATION, but rather to concessions, and territory losses. Small states disappear with the flick of a dick, but larger ones tend to have some momentum.
As... That Preussian with a name that starts with C who wrote a book on warfare said, "war is the continuation of politics by other means", or something similar.
So, I'd say TOTAL ANNIHILATION should be rare, but wars that lead to peace treaties because the other side cannot stand the losses could be viable. After all, that's... What war is about.
Heh, I can't get the picture of people protesting against the attack of a certain nation out of my head. That would be interesting.
Anyhoo, risk style would be fine by me. And I do hope wars are allowed; they add a lot more excitement. As for what happens when they lose, I say that the winner takes over the territory, and the people that lived there have to settle into another nearby area.
Or have the option to join the winning nationQuote:
Originally Posted by Rubedo
I prefer either way really.
Think about your nation only have one or two towns if we did it risk style, and another nation having twenty. They attack you - your nation will probably end up being as good as gone, they'll be bigger, and we'll end up with people trying to take over the world. This is why I'm not allowing for this sort of tactics/strategy thing. Because it's not about taking over the world.
Believe me, I love risk, and I'd be happy to play with you guys if it's been made into an online game, but I don't want this forum to end up like that. It wouldn't reflect EoFF anymore.
As I said, you'd necessarily not lose your territories in war. Only if it goes very far would that happen, and only if people are really, really sure they can stomach to pump that much money, resources and people into a war could they concievably win it.
Again, it's not a strategy game. If we start talking about how much money, resources and people have, huge debates will come out and this will become a strategy game. It's not a strategy. The only aim of this place is to develop a world for EoFF. The only reason I'd really want a war, as said beforehand, is to remove inactive nations because they would be defeating the purpose of developing the world.
Of course, once it's developed, there's nothing to say that I won't consider making an RPG out of it or something.
Maybe I should remove those rules I put up earlier, they've changed a bit now, eh?
And yeah, I think I'll go with inactivity = target for a war.
... grmbl... War is an integral part of politics... grmbl.
Yes it is. But survival comes before everything else. If you want war, find an online version of Risk, and we can have a game.
I agree with BoB. We'll build a world, get everything started up, and then develop the game further if it all works out.
Oh, all right! I won't conquer ya'll until this is figured out. >:o
Well, conquer and conquer. Maybe fusion, or political take-overs, rather than actual military action.
Looks like a certain evil overlord caved in to political pressure. :p
But seriously, thanks for sparing us, Nait.
No problem. I can wait.
At least until that volcano blows you to smithereens.
I <3 Nature. :love: