[Keanu Stryker]

-What if we had a map, that showed bordering nations, colonies, and territories.

-We could have more than one city (if you have the enough land).

-Instead of buying land, you have to invade your neighbors.

-When you declare war on someone you invade their nation, and whatever we take (cities, harbors, banks, land) becomes yours (like the real world).

-You can have different campaigns in which you invade at different points, and attack different areas, and cities.

-You can spread you military to not only protect your capital city, but also your improvements and other cities.

-When the war ends, either by treaty or anarchy, the land, infrastructures, cities, and improvements can either be given back to the other nation or kept by you.

Please post modifications

This post has been edited by Keanu Stryker: 16 February 2008 - 02:11 PM

[Smallfrog]

VFABIC

Well, actually just voted No.

1. What would be the point?

2. Cities idea is already around somewhere

3. We would run out of land very fast. Games with limited resources are not a good idea

4. It already happens when you carry of their land and tech.

5. This is a nation simulator, real world campaigns do not fit in this planet.

6. Already effectively happens, defensive/aggressive military.

7. Already in the game. Reparations are often paid by one party.

[Keanu Stryker]

Answers to Smallfrogs comments

1. The point would be to make this game more realistic.

2. I just wanted to incorporate other ideas into this plan.

3. That would mean this game would require a more skilled leader, better strategist, and would teach people the art of leadership (and strategy making).

4. Well this way you don't carry it off you take it over (more like the real world).

5. These aren't real world campaigns they are campaigns that the players of Cyber Nations will make up to save their butts from being conquered or to win a war.

6. Not really, I was thinking more of put 500 troops to guard the port, 1000 to guard the capital, and another 500 to guard city 1.

7. In this plan reparations aren't paid their taken over. With it being taken over it guarantees that your going to get reparations.

*Edit to my plan*

-With this map it will also depend on where you put your country in order to get certain improvements. You need to be near water to build a harbor, and ect.

This post has been edited by KayStryker: 22 December 2007 - 11:56 AM

[Keanu Stryker]

Almost everyone keeps voting "NO"

Can someone tell me what is wrong with it.

[Smallfrog]

exactly what I said. Parts are already in the game, parts are to complicated, and parts do not add to gameplay.

[Keanu Stryker]

Smallfrog, on Dec 22 2007, 06:18 PM, said:

exactly what I said. Parts are already in the game, parts are to complicated, and parts do not add to gameplay.

First, I am trying to make the aspects that are in this proposal that are already in the game better.

Second, how can I make this better.

[Smallfrog]

Well, while a more interesting map could be fun, its generally agreed that there are more important things to be dealt with.

Cities, not much to say, I haven't really looked at the other topic.

With the land, the problem is that, we already get land in war. And the game needs a growing supply as more infa needs more land.

Stealing infrastructure has been suggested, but it would work best if, say you stole 2 % of someones land, you take 2% of there infa. Keeps its simple.

Different campaigns comes under different types of ground attack, already in the game.

The military idea sounds kinda complicated, though you could have 4 different defence settings, and each one can counter an different battle type. (say urban defense counters aggressive attack, as defending cities is how you hold of blitzrieg)

When the war ends, it is quite common for aid transactions to be made, and I would prefer if that remains the standard method of transfer.

[Keanu Stryker]

Smallfrog, on Dec 22 2007, 06:43 PM, said:

Well, while a more interesting map could be fun, its generally agreed that there are more important things to be dealt with.

Cities, not much to say, I haven't really looked at the other topic.

With the land, the problem is that, we already get land in war. And the game needs a growing supply as more infa needs more land.

Stealing infrastructure has been suggested, but it would work best if, say you stole 2 % of someones land, you take 2% of there infa. Keeps its simple.

Different campaigns comes under different types of ground attack, already in the game.

The military idea sounds kinda complicated, though you could have 4 different defence settings, and each one can counter an different battle type. (say urban defense counters aggressive attack, as defending cities is how you hold of blitzrieg)

When the war ends, it is quite common for aid transactions to be made, and I would prefer if that remains the standard method of transfer.

When you get land in a war, it is just added to your circle. With my plan you actually control some of their land.

With my plan, you don't steal infrastructure or land you take it over.

With the campaigns:

Nation A wants to invade Nation B. Nation A's ruler might launch the Nation B's Capital Campaign. In this campaign Nation A's military will invade nation B's capital and capture it. There should be different types of campaigns:

Total War- where the invading nation's army destroys everything until it completes its mission.

Focused- where the invading nation's army is focused on the goal of destroying, or capturing the selected city.

I like your idea at the bottom.

[Pomiel]

TOO
COMPLICATED

[Keanu Stryker]

What is complicated about it

[Havvy]

Make your own game. Your suggestion is basically just that.

[King C]

This was discussed on the old forums.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't someone post a very lengthy explanation on how this wouldn't work?

Anyway, I have to know, how do you mess up on polls anymore? I thought it was next to impossible on these new forums 0.0

[dre on fire]

personally the only idea i like on that list is the cities.


there is not enough land on the earth to accomidate everyone.

[TheDave]

KayStryker, on Dec 22 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

Almost everyone keeps voting "NO"

Can someone tell me what is wrong with it.

I suspect the ones that voted otherwise are VFABICs

[Keanu Stryker]

dre on fire, on Dec 24 2007, 04:31 AM, said:

personally the only idea i like on that list is the cities.


there is not enough land on the earth to accomidate everyone.

It does not have to be earth.

And nations can start at 1 square mile

[Care Bear the mighty]

no

[Care Bear the mighty]

fine the way it is

[Keanu Stryker]

Care Bear, on Jan 26 2008, 12:54 AM, said:

fine the way it is

I was just trying to add some spice to the map, it is way underused. I wanted to make this game more like the real world.

[Kwidowmaker]

I really, really, really, really wouldn't want to write the military guide for your proposed game. The simplicity of CN is great, and tactics come out of alliance interaction and cooperation. Good as it is.

[Care Bear the mighty]

Quote

CN is not real life, some aspects will never be like RL