Currently, one or the other is used as ingame in different ways.

A nation's total land affects:

• Prerequisite for navies
• Nation population (slightly)
• Nation environment (slightly)
• Ground battles

A nation's purchased land is used in these ways:

• Prerequisite for wonders
• Spy defense
• Nation strength
• Can be stolen in ground battles, and destroyed by nuclear weapons

My proposal is to abolish the separate usage of purchased land. It should be possible for a nation with 3K land to buy an ADP or MIC, regardless of how much of it is purchased land. Also, it should be possible to steal, nuke, etc. unpurchased land. Spies should get a defensive benefit from natural growth as well. And finally, nation strength should be based on total land, rather than just purchased land.

There just does not seem to be any logic to treating growth land as a kind of inferior land that happens to be permanent.

Approved for discussion.

But then could you possibly have a nation with no land? Not talking about game mechanics but simple realism. How could you have a nation without land?

A simple bottom cap could be set if necessary.

Question of clarification before I weigh in on the suggestion: Does the multiplier from furs continue to apply to grown land if you lose the trade? I mean, if grown land is at a certain number one day (say 300) and the next day the nation loses furs, does the grown land stay put?

That's just kind of a sideline to me concern over whether or not grown land and modifiered land can be sold/destroyed.

How is it possible for land to "grow" anyway?

Let's not get into that since removing that mechanic would make furs even worse than it is. I mean, it's not realistic, but taking it away from furs would be mean.

I like this suggestion, there really is no point to it now.

Perhaps another change too, the use of the term "diameter" shouldn't be used when labeling your land, instead square miles should be used. Because if my nation truly has a diameter of 6,276.441 miles, the square mileage of my nation has the land area of roughly 30,924,063.627 square miles. (Area of a circle = Pi r²), which compared to the real world is more than half of the land area. (There is approximately 57,506,000 square miles of land on the earth)

I tried explaining this to Admin once already. Trust me.

As to the suggestion in the OP, the one problem I can see is that many people have to almost forced to buy land as it is (I genuinely think that population densities worse than Hong Kong would be just fine by them...then again, they don't live in the overcrowded conditions in RL and don't see why pixels should care), so removing several good reasons why they should seems counterproductive in that regard.

I would argue this means that more incentive needs to be given to have total land in much larger quantities, rather than keeping arbitrary switching between total and bought land. Making total land used for more makes the land boosting resources actually useful. Even moreso if land gets some actually noteable benefits for existing.


That said I wholly disagree with natural growth being able to be stolen. I like the idea of having something just due to existing that gives you a leg up on younger nations. If only all that untouchable land did something we'd be set.

I think if i remember right, nation age provides some citizens. I know its peanuts, but its still something for being old

I believe that's probably the grown land thing providing citizens, but correct me if I'm wrong.


I'm not sure how viable or intensive of a switch it would be, but I think basically everything land related should be taken from total land; having the distinctions still in existence lets grown and modifiered land not be stolen, which would be kind of odd.

I believe it does. Of course I have furs native, so this doesn't apply to me.


I think nation age adds to happiness, not population. Of course growth land adds to citizens; for me, as a 781 day old furs nation with no ADP (not enough purchased land to qualify for it), my growth land gives me 234 citizens.

Okay not very much. Compare that to my moon colony, which gives me 5175 citizens.

In the real world, places like Andorra basically have no land.

Perhaps you could set a 1-mile minimum. Yes, there are countries that small.

That would work for me.

One problem I see then would be some of the "Events" that reduce/increase Land size would now actually reduce or increase your overall NS. I had two -10% land events at the same time. For a large nation that could be a sizable NS reduction...

I believe those events only go onto modifiers, so they wouldn't be affected by this proposal.

There's actually three things that make up total land, purchased, growth and modifiers.

I agree that purchases and grown land should just be combined, but I don't really see a way that modifier land could be stolen do to the fact that it requires purchases land as part of how it's determined. Wouldn't we have to do away with all land modifiers?

The proposal has nothing to do with land modifiers. Please read my last post.

That's fine and all, but in the original suggestion you say:



I was under the impression that you were suggesting lumping everything together for everything, since grown land alone would really not make that much of a difference for any of the situations put forward there (a 1200 day old nation without furs would have roughly 600 miles of land). As such I thought that modifiers would have something to do with it. If that's not the case please clarify.

Ah, no I meant lumping together purchased and grown. When I wrote the OP, modifiers had completely slipped my mind.

Okay, good, because I thought I was losing my mind. Anyways, combining grown and purchases land together is a simple suggestion that I whole-heartedly am in favor of. I think there are some other land improvements that can be made, too, but they have nothing to do with your suggestion whatsoever so I won't clutter this suggestion.

I'm going to buck the trend here and say the opposite; more emphasis should be placed on total land for advantages and prereqs should be focused on purchased. Thus I would make it:

A nation's total land affects:

• Nation population (slightly)
• Nation environment (slightly)
• Ground battles
• Population density
• Spy defense
• Nation strength

A nation's purchased land is used in these ways:

• Prerequisite for navies
• Prerequisite for wonders
• Can be stolen in ground battles, and destroyed by nuclear weapons

I'd actually be good with this.

^ I support the above whole heartedly ^

Mind pointing out which of these are different than the current state of things? The only one that I see being a change is that I think total land doesn't calculate into NS currently, only purchased. That's also the only one I have a problem with, since I really don't know if I think making NS directly variable upon resources is a good idea; not sure one way or the other, but it should be discussed.

A nation's total land affects:

• Nation population (slightly)
• Nation environment (slightly)
• Ground Battles
• Population density
• Spy defense
• Nation strength

A nation's purchased land is used in these ways:

• Prerequisite for navies
• Prerequisite for wonders
• Can be stolen in ground battles, and destroyed by nuclear weapons

Blue - Changed from current

According to the information index page total land is already used to calculate spy defense.

Ah yes, quite true. That's a revision from the original rule (when spies were first released) that I missed.

No, the grown land reduces if you lose furs. So if one day you have 900 miles of grown land (with furs), if you then lose furs you will have 300 miles of grown land.



I wouldn't be in favor of letting grown land be stolen, particularly since it only grows at 0.5 of a mile per day for any nation who lacks furs. If grown land could be stolen then 40 days worth of grown land could be stolen in one GA. Grown land being permanent also solves a number of mechanics problems within the game by ensuring that you can never get a divide by zero error and also ensuring that an older nation does have some very small advantage should they be pushed back down to 0 infra.

I'd be in favor of letting total land be the requirement for everything as opposed to just purchased land. Now it would mean that the requirements for the ADP & MIC would need to be boosted up a bit but that shouldn't be a problem. Boosting their requirements up by an extra 20% should account well enough for grown and modified land being added into the calculation.

I think they need to make land more useful than just providing a happiness bonus that can easily be avoided with Water. After all, land is one of the most significant assets a country can have.

i completely agree that land needs to be changed. what is the rationale for treating purchased land different from natural growth? i can see not allowing natural growth to be stolen, but why should it not count in NS? why should it not count as a condition for buying wonders?

having purchased land count as NS and as conditions to buy wonders really devalues natural growth, and it's just plain stupid. it just artificially punished natural growth nations in terms of wonders, and artificially devalues their NS (which just isn't fair, to any nations). it also takes away one of the few benefits of having furs as a resource.

I think the reason that natural growth isn't used to determine NS or wonder requirements is because as the name implies it's naturally occurring. One doesn't have to do anything to obtain it, it just happens. You don't even need to log into the game. If you look at the current factors used in NS and requirements for various improvements/wonders, they all require you to do something. You actually have to buy something or capture in a war; to interact with the game over doing nothing and simply letting it happen. People already moan about the advantages the older players have in the game due to their having been here longer. Doesn't factoring in a resource built solely on how long you have been around (except for furs) further that advantage?

actually, removing all land's NS value altogether would make it much more attractive.

one other problem with natural growth: navies.

a tactic used by some during war is to keep land below 1000, so you won't have to worry about purchasing navies if you have a small warchest. however, if you have furs you're natural growth will mean you are always above 1000 land and exposed to higher risk. not as big of a problem as NS and wonder requirements, but it's just another stupid issue that makes a difference in the long run.

I totally agree with the OP. Land is land. It should all be treated like land.

This really needs to be changed. At 500 land, it already costs 11k per level. In order to buy up to 3000 for the Mining Industry Consortium I need to spend a godly amount of money (75-100 mil?) for just 2500 land, and the actual benefit I get from that land is nihil, it would probably take 3+ years to pay itself back (more without the ADP), which is unacceptable for such low levels of land imo. At least make things a little easier by including growth and modifier land in the wonder requirements. I can understand why they wouldn't be included in the navy requirement (being at 1000+ when you don't want to) but, land is land, and I don't see why you'd need to purchase the full 3k to buy the wonder.