Best Government

[+Zeke+]

I've heard of this new strategy with other government types. I would like to discuss whether or not you all think the 3 day government switch restriction should be increased? The change wouldn't be to prevent the strategy but to make people consider the move in case war or some other event took place during a new restiction of 5, 7 or maybe 10 days. Thoughts?

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with the current 3 days.

If the idea behind the considered is to handicap players from massaging the government choices I have to ask what is actually wrong with players doing that?

Locking out or hobbling options only cuts a player's ability to have a unique strategy.

The more flexibility I can get running my nation the happier I'll be.

[choop]

I... I uh-

I'm not sure how to put this.

I-- wow, um, I think I -uh, this is tough.

I agree.

With zeke.

*Emperor Choop head asplode

[Cruxador]

I don't think increasing the time will have any effect on gameplay for the larger nations. Most people swapping governments do it in concert with swapping Labor Camps, over a period of 15 days anyway. Government choices don't make a vast difference in war anyway. The only people who will be effected by this are the little nations making poor choices.

More of an effect, without crippling people, might be felt imho if changing Gov decreased environment by .5, and then that penalty went away at a rate of .1 per day. Have a max penalty of 1 env to prevent new nations from accidentally crippling themselves.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Cruxador

[Blue Lightning]

I've heard of this new strategy with other government types. I would like to discuss whether or not you all think the 3 day government switch restriction should be increased? The change wouldn't be to prevent the strategy but to make people consider the move in case war or some other event took place during a new restiction of 5, 7 or maybe 10 days. Thoughts?

Increasing it will only serve to hamper the use of the new government swapping (unless you restrict people to changing thier gov's to 19+ days which would make choosing the wrong one by mistake far too damaging IMO) not eliminate it.

If you do decide to change it, could you provide several days of advanced warning? I am aproaching my collection date and am planning on gov swapping for maximum efficiency. If you change it suddenly, it could scupper my plans and cost me a lot.

Edited May 26, 2008 by Blue Lightning

[zzzptm]

I've heard of this new strategy with other government types. I would like to discuss whether or not you all think the 3 day government switch restriction should be increased? The change wouldn't be to prevent the strategy but to make people consider the move in case war or some other event took place during a new restiction of 5, 7 or maybe 10 days. Thoughts?

Absolutely. 10 days between switching, except in the case of a spy attack.

[XRCatD]

I think revolutionary govt or monarchy is better, if you have border walls or already best environment, because whether or not you have that environment bonus will make no difference if it's already the best possible environment. In addition, they both have the discount on infra buying.

Edited May 27, 2008 by XRCatD

[SilverHawk]

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with the current 3 days.

If the idea behind the considered is to handicap players from massaging the government choices I have to ask what is actually wrong with players doing that?

Locking out or hobbling options only cuts a player's ability to have a unique strategy.

The more flexibility I can get running my nation the happier I'll be.

So abusing the game is strategy?

The sooner we get rid of improvement swaps and government swaping the better.

[iMatt]

So abusing the game is strategy?

The sooner we get rid of improvement swaps and government swaping the better.

I agree with improvement swapping, but really what's so bad about gov't swapping?? If you're smart enough to plan 3 days ahead for changes in govt, then you should be able to do so.

[Aeternos Astramora]

So abusing the game is strategy?

The sooner we get rid of improvement swaps and government swaping the better.

Taking out the strategy in nation-building is only going to decrease interest in the game.

[Caesar833]

This has kinda gone off topic from best government to time between switches. But as for best government i think it depends on your nation. If you need the environement bonus then you switch to that government. For me my environment is top notch anyway so i dont need that bonus.

After saying that the best gov has to be revolutiinary, democracy or capitalist

[Blue Lightning]

So abusing the game is strategy?

The sooner we get rid of improvement swaps and government swaping the better.

Call it what you like, it's the best way to grow your nation. The fact that you don't want it in the game does not mean it isn't a valid strategy.

Personally, I like improvement and gov swapping. I think it makes growing your nation a little more challenging and I like the fact that there are nations who either don't know how to do it or can't be bothered to. It gives nations who can and do make the effort a slight edge. Isn't rewarding the player who puts the most effort into his nation more important than whether or not it is realistic? This is a game, it isn't meant to be totaly realistic. Otherwise it would just be called "Real Life".

Edited May 27, 2008 by Blue Lightning

[SilverHawk]

It wasen't the orginal intention of the Admin to have these things in the game in the first place. So fighting to keep them in just shows that you want some edge no matter how small and ill gotten. How about some ACTUAL strategy for the War System and Tax/Religion/Government system?

[Blue Lightning]

It wasen't the orginal intention of the Admin to have these things in the game in the first place. So fighting to keep them in just shows that you want some edge no matter how small and ill gotten. How about some ACTUAL strategy for the War System and Tax/Religion/Government system?

Don't make assumptions about what I want. The war system does need more work and a I would welcome changes to many of the features including the "Tax/Religion/Government system" if it means more strategy.

That is not really the matter on hand though, there are discussions all over the suggestions board to make changes with those things. I thought we were talking about improvement/government swapping and my statement was that I think that removing it from the game would bring less strategy to the gameplay.

[Pikajew]

I agree with BLT. If we were to remove the improvement swapping and government swapping, it is only taking the fun and excitement out of the game. People like to think they are better than everyone else, and this gives them an upper hand. if you take that away, people will realize that they have the same opportunities as everyone else, and as "fair" as that may seem, it will decrease interest. The world is not fair, so why should we make a simulation fair.

And I do agree with redesigning the tax/religion/war system, because I want more strategy, because I want to feel like, if I master that system, I will have an advantage to others, and that is what drives this game. If no one cared about being better than everyone else, everyone would still have 5 ns nations.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Pikajew

[SilverHawk]

Improvement/Government Swapping doesn't feel like strategy because it doesn't encourage variety between players. For a long time the 8BG set was inferior to the 3BG set. It's not "Strategy" if it's the ONLY way to get ahead.

[Aeternos Astramora]

Improvement/Government Swapping doesn't feel like strategy because it doesn't encourage variety between players. For a long time the 8BG set was inferior to the 3BG set. It's not "Strategy" if it's the ONLY way to get ahead.

Everyone can improvement in the life of their nation. The only matter is size.

Not everyone can have the perfect 8BG or 3BG set.

[Blue Lightning]

Improvement/Government Swapping doesn't feel like strategy because it doesn't encourage variety between players. For a long time the 8BG set was inferior to the 3BG set. It's not "Strategy" if it's the ONLY way to get ahead.

And yet despite the fact that everyone knows about improvement swapping and which trades are best, not everyone is improvement swapping or making the most of thier trades (for various reasons), giving an edge to those who do. That sure sounds like strategy to me.

[Caesar833]

Yeah i know I personally should be improvement swapping by now but i choose not too because im too lazy to work a good system. All the power to the people who work the system and strategy. I mean even if admin didnt mean to make it part of the game, it is now so might as well use it

[JoshuaR]

Just as a note to gov swapping... if I switched to an upkeep bonus gov during bill paying, I would only save $1.2million over 100 days. I would say that there is no fear that people will abuse the gov switching, and even if they do this, the benefits are slight.

[Aeternos Astramora]

Just as a note to gov swapping... if I switched to an upkeep bonus gov during bill paying, I would only save $1.2million over 100 days. I would say that there is no fear that people will abuse the gov switching, and even if they do this, the benefits are slight.

The real benefit is from buying infra, but the upkeep is just a bonus.

[zzzptm]

Yay for Capitalism, even though it's pretty much the identical twin of Republic. If anyone scrambles my government off Capitalism, there's a slight chance they leave me with a government pretty much the same as the one they spied me off of.