How do you think battles should be won?
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?
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
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.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
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.
Word/s.
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.
"The most important and recognize player in the history of the country."
Sometimes I wonder what my life would be like if I were as great as Paulo Wanchope.
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.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'.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
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.
"The most important and recognize player in the history of the country."
Sometimes I wonder what my life would be like if I were as great as Paulo Wanchope.
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.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
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.
"The most important and recognize player in the history of the country."
Sometimes I wonder what my life would be like if I were as great as Paulo Wanchope.
I agree with that.Originally Posted by Loony BoB
specially since I have a small island...
["What I give form to in daylight is only one per cent of what I have seen in darkness." M.C. Escher
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.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
>.<
sorry i keep forgetting about that....
ack, plz forgive me!!
["What I give form to in daylight is only one per cent of what I have seen in darkness." M.C. Escher
Nah, it's cool, don't worry.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
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.
Last edited by Nait; 07-30-2004 at 02:18 PM.
Posting Permissions
