Printable View
We won't have wars immediately, but just a few questions...
1) Should we allow wars?
2) If so, how would one decide who wins?
3) What would happen to the members of the nation? Would it be up to the winner of the war, or would they have the ability to flee, or what?
3) This will depend in relation to 2) and the nature of the conflict. If Nation A has raised an army and invaded Nation B, and B loses, then it would fall to either a Nation A Occupation, some sort of peace accord, or Nation B pulling together another army and continuing the fight. If Nation B was a large Country then the second army would be likely, however it may change based upon the leader. If Nation B was a one city state, and it's army was annihilated, then it would then be a conquered part of Nation A, dependant of course on alliances and other diplomatic use if that was also included with warfare. The reverse to all this can apply, if say Nation A loses after starting the war, then they would end up being conquered.
Wyll: How, going by your idea, would a nation establish an army? If it were that easy, everyone would just say they had a massive army and would win any war and we'd be stuck.
The only (simple) idea I could come up with is that a war is won by attacking a nation and having no members respond within a certain timescale. It would also help get rid of nations that aren't developing because a member wanted to start a nation but didn't want to do anything with it after that.
On my theory, it would probably be complicated and annoying to raise an army, probably based on exisiting population and resources, but using that would complicate things to no end. The simple timeframe idea seems to be the easiest solution to the problem, and if moderates watch whenever this happens or enforce a declaration system for wars then it should run smoothly.
If you want a novel but skill determined approach you could find some web based online chess (or any type or stratagy) game.
I like the idea of keeping things simple, but the timeframe idea has one major flaw. The majority of our user base are from the US, right? If I were to attack a nation at 10am GMT (a perfectly likely scenario) then there would most likely be no-one awake to defend it. The timezone problem would give an unfair advantage to certain members.
I won't make it a chess thing or a certain someone will come along and own the entire world. We once had a chess club type thing here at EoFF and he was pretty much unbeatable. :p But yeah, I'm not going for a strategy thing as this world has to allow for fun, too, and I want to keep the main focus on developing the nations and the world rather than taking it over.
As for the time thing, yes, that's true, but if we made it a 24 hours thing then we'd be fine. Even an 18 hour thing would work, but I'd rather 24 hours. Personally, I don't want any wars at all unless the person is inactive and doesn't care to develop his nation, and that would be an effective way to 'get rid of them'.
So only the leader of the territory would be able to block attacks from neighbouring states? That could work. I'm all for it.
As for what happens to the losers, I'd suggest the following:
1) The country may choose to surrender. If so, it's land and resources are given to the conqueror. All residents become citizens of the occupying country.
2) Some/all residents may choose to flee. If this is the case, they can take a limited amount of resources and move into a nieghbouring state (with that state's permission, of course). They could also use Stalin's 'Scorched Earth' policy, whereby all resources in the region are destroyed, and thus cannot be used by the invading army.
3) The invader has the right to do as he sees fit with the region. He can destroy settlements, construct new ones and kill/imprison residents.
EDIT: Just had a thought. Could we have a rule specifying the minimum size of an invading nation? For example, only nations with an equal or larger population than their neighbour would be able to attack. A rule like this would encourage development for the purpose of expansion, rather than allow people to conquer the world at will.
I think it would be too complicated to bring resources into the equation.
As for minimum size of nation, yeah, we'll have to figure something out for that. Then again, it's possible for a tiny nation to attack a large nation. I think what would be a better idea is to say that the size of your population (in members) or else size in territory would influence not your chances of winning but how much territory you would gain. That way, while a small country can take over a neighbouring country's town, it would be seen as possible suicide as it would have angered them into wanting to attack back.
Of course, having said that, the chances of a large nation having no members active in 24 hours is pretty low, and the chances of a small nation having no members active in 24 hours is much higher. Again, it would be suicide. Likewise it would be daft for a large country to attack another large country, because they'd react just as fast.
And, again, this would all encourage activity and development of the world and nations rather than encouraging war, so that's cool. Activity = Survival, and that makes sense, really.
Yes, that seems to be the best set-up. There might be a lot of conflict in the formative stages of the world, but once things settle down, the size of nations would deter leaders from war-making. Good job, BoB. :)
I agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
specially since I have a small island...
How do you know what island you have? You know this isn't anything to do with the Eyesonia thread... D=
Czanthor: There won't be many (if any) wars in the early stages because the nations will be so small that they probably won't even have borders with other nations. Some might grow fast, mind you.
>.<
sorry i keep forgetting about that.... :cry:
ack, plz forgive me!! :(
Nah, it's cool, don't worry. :) Who knows, if you become one of the nations, you might end up on a small island anyway? I don't want to get anyone's hopes up on becoming a nation just yet, though, still need to sort a couple of things out for that...
I say war could be fought with units, dice and MONEY.
Money, so's you can't fight all the time.
Units, so's there's a tactical aspect, a regulatory aspect, and so forth,
And dice, so's wars could go either way - and even small states would have chances.
Armies (units), would be in a territory or other, and would attack other territories and/or armies, and they'd, depending on their size, number and competence, would cost money, which would be gathered depending on what kind of state is in question.
Every turn, players would send all their commands to their armies, and they all would be played at the same time, by the moderators, who would give us a general report, and secret reports to individual members.
There's nothing more noble or valiant than a hotdog eating contest. :cool:
I'd love that, but I don't think any kind of complex battle system will be allowed. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Nait
Still, it would be nice to have fortifications or something. Maybe they could extend the response time available to a nation?
Sorry, but I enjoy complexity. :)
No, because if you're a leader of a nation you should have someone in your nation active once every 24 hours or so. =P
I might make the timeframe a bit longer than 24 hours, mind you, that was just a number I pulled off the top of my head. As I said, the only reason I want wars is to get rid of inactive nations. Otherwise, the main point of this forum is to have fun and create a world (or nation), not dominate it. It's an interactive world where you RP the leader of your nation, and you can do all sorts of things besides wars in that kind of scenario. I'm sure you'll all concentrate on naming things and organising systems before you consider battles. :)
Ah. In that case, 24-48 hours would be ideal. Sorry to waste your time with my bloodthirsty attitude. :)
I guess we could have an like some sort excel spreadsheet that works it out by the amount of units and a random factor. I would make one but the random funtion doesnt work on mine becasue I dont have something installed :/ .
EDIT: here we go, the random numbers change everytime you change something. If it doesnt work then goto tools/Add-ins and enable Analyasis tool-pack (dont ask me why, the little cat (I dont like the paperclip) told me to do it.)
EDIT 2: Oh yeah, the person with the highest nubmer wins. I would put a fancy IF command that said things like "easy victory" or "close victory" but I cant remember how and I can be bothered to find out.
EDIT 3: Oh yeah (again) the units have to be a value of 1-10 for it to work.
that maps a little bit confusing nait.
Interesting ideas, though some of what has been said sounds very much like the game "Risk".
Perhaps, we should hold off a little while before any kind of attacks occur. If we are using the situation BoB made in another thread, then I'd warrant it's highly unlikely anyone would attack another nation because first and foremost, one must attempt to make a home for themselves and settle the territory.
Take care all.
That's because Risk is awesome. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
Without doubt. I for one won't be engaging in any conflict until I've built a solid nation. In fact, the first thing I'll be doing is drawing up a peace treaty.Quote:
Perhaps, we should hold off a little while before any kind of attacks occur. If we are using the situation BoB made in another thread, then I'd warrant it's highly unlikely anyone would attack another nation because first and foremost, one must attempt to make a home for themselves and settle the territory.
Yeah, like I said, wars/battles should only happen if a nation has been inactive, because we'd rather have active players than not.
Wars need to be real-time.
Therefore, they must be conducted in chat.
Oh no. xD Well, you can write out the war as you like it if you're the attacker and you win. :)
heh, only one person bothered to look at mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
That SUCKS. >:o
1)I personally have no problem with it (I do not have any plan of any kind in engaging in warfare), but it shouldn't effect the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
2)i think maybe we should do a D&D style thing. find a flash dice rolling game, and then have some sort of plan like,
nation a: rolls a 3
nation b: rolls 1
nation b looses 200 soldiers (the difference between the rolled numbers). this should go on until whichever side has no remaining soldiers, or wishes to surrender
3)the winning nation should give the people 1 of 3 choices;
1 - Join our nation
2- flee & join another one
3 - start a revot & be slaughtered (sp?)
just my thoughts on the whole thing though ^_~
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:
If anything gets out of hand we can always say the hand of God came down and smote him.
God's hand is what he _____ with, so no thanks. >:o
Goodbye, Metareason, Inc. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
*still a Jebusian official*
edit: And Jebusia had better be on Verdantia, because I've named half the freaking stuff there already.
in regards to naits post...maybe it wasnt god's hand that smote him >.>
As of date, of all the options I've read, BoB's seems the most logical. Like he said, it's not a strategy game, it's a reflection of the World of EoFF. But that's just me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aranel
"My God's :mog: is bigger than your God's :mog:."
thats it! i declare a holy war!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nait