Organic warfare/new mode/rework

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Organic warfare/new mode/rework

      War. This game is all about war. In real life war can happen, but it isn't a "I feel like attacking so I will". That is artificial war. IRL There is geo-politics, sanctions, seizures of ships... Those are Organic causes for war

      I feel that is missing in this game. I am about to layout an entire rework and addition to this game for a SEPARATE game mode

      *trade. First if all, scrap the trade system in place. No instant magical transfer of resources. There will be 3 ways to trade. Land, air and sea.

      --Land trading:

      -basic: send an offer to a neighboring country. Once it is accepted, your resources will be loaded into trucks from your capital go to the capital of the trading partner by truck. Then the money gets on a truck and makes its way back to your capital. This only works for neighbors

      -complex: Let's say you want to trade with a land locked country that isn't bordering you. You would need to go through another person's territory. In order for that to happen the country must mark a trade route for your trucks to go through. That country can impose taxes (their choice for how much) to go through. That could mean a percentage of the resource or money going through and/or additional fixed tax of a certain amount of money. when you select a trade route it will tell you the taxes imposed in each route. Also, any troops stationed by the host country, or ally of a host country can seize the resource without starting a war. Though the trade route will be automatically canceled for future shipments. A host country can block some countries, while allowing other countries to ship through them. This adds strategic value to some locations. That creates tensions and possible sanctions


      --air: similar to land with taxes. If the host country or allied country has fighter jets, they can also seize resources or money.
      Carrier can intercept and redirect flights over water. Trading in air requires you to build transport planes. Each level of planes can carry more and go faster.
      Lvl 1 is 1,000 resources or money at a speed of 5
      Lvl 2 is 2,000 resources or money at speed of 6 and so on until level 7
      Just like with ships units you can attach Jets to your planes. But if combat planes are crossing foreign territory that is not an ally or right of way it will be a provocation which we will get to later

      *water territory claims: I will get back to sea trade, but this needs to be first. Any country that has at least one province (whether homeland or conquered) that is bordering a body of water can mark out an area of the sea that it claims. In order to do so each unit("x" amount of area) will cost them rare materials. The claimed area of the body of water is seen by everybody. It can extend far out to block shipping routes. The person with claimed water territory can impose taxes upon passing that territory Every day that the claimed area is not violated the country gets rare materials income proportional to the claimed land. If a military violation of the territory (including airplanes unless they are ferrying) happens (surface combatant or troop transport. subs won't count unless detected by host country) then the rare mat income won’t happen. The host will know which country, but not where the violation happens. The host country can allow countries to escort their shipments with combat ships through claimed sea, that will not be a violation.

      trade-sea: if transport has a surface combatant it does not have to pay taxes, but if host has a surface combatant blocking the offending transport it stops moving when it sees the host surface combatant

      Radar contacts will have a trade marking to distinguish between military and civilian



      *demands

      Demands are when a trade shipment that goes through land or water territory that is owned or claimed by someone else without taxes. This adds to diplomacy and bluffs and

      *seizures/provocations

      Only trade seizures of above 1000 of any resource count. This is to prevent gaming of the system by doing tons of small trades. Seizures
      Can be done by any country ast long as it is in international space. Meaning if you had a combat jet that deal air to air damage than you could seize a plane shipment and re-route that to your home. Same as sea seizures, if you have a ship you can seize another sea shipment. If a shipment is protected then you have to destroy the escort before you can reroute a shipment.

      (limit 3 per day)

      *attacks
      Attacking will start combat the usual way for ground units, but it is only for one attack. After the attack and defense attacking unit auto retreats without taking a penalty for retreating. (I don’t know how a ground attack won’t start a war by crossing into hostile territory, but I had to write that in)If air struck then anti air defenses work. If a ship attacks another ship, that ship that was attacked will fire back (instantly without taking the reduced attack when damaged), but only as many times as the first ship attacked. So the attacking ship when not in war will only fire once.


      (limit 1 per day)

      *surrender

      This will make surrendering an option.
      Surrendering will make you leave the game, but you get to keep the gold from victory points. What this will add to the game. This may seem weird, but this adds to diplomacy. You can make threats for your enemy to surrender. But you can only surrender in any game once per two weeks, This is to prevent abuses to the system.

      To encourage trading each full trade (from sending resources to getting the money or vice versa) will give both countries 1 victory point.

      how this will make you (the coders) money. Gold can be used for direct transfers of resources and money. Gold can be used to buy an extra attack or provocation.


      P.S. this took a long time and effort to think about, plan, find ways to block abuses of system, and write. Please tell me what you think and modifications to this rework





    • Actually Territorial Waters a Good Idea: Was thinking that lst night (actually looked up 12 miles from shore) so they could just make 1 little way point out. But better solution would just add a "Fire at any non friendly vessel". No Civilians in this game; either you are an active threat or potential future threat. Either way Im sinking anything heading anywhere near my area. And by Day 20 Im laying claim to half the pacific; the tax for trying to drive transports across is they get sunk. I Fire on all unidentified Blue dots; ask questions later.

      Trade is fine how it is... who wants to send a 12 hr convoy to pick up resources..

      Your Attack this is just Silly. You are rewarding Inactive players

      Your Surrender option would just encourage more people uiting than they already do. Stay and fight or lose all your VPs; Units; and stats.
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp

      The post was edited 4 times, last by The Pale Rider ().

    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Actually Territorial Waters a Good Idea: Was thinking that lst night (actually looked up 12 miles from shore) so they could just make 1 little way point out. But better solution would just add a "Fire at any non friendly vessel". No Civilians in this game; either you are an active threat or potential future threat. Either way Im sinking anything heading anywhere near my area. And by Day 20 Im laying claim to half the pacific; the tax for trying to drive transports across is they get sunk. I Fire on all unidentified Blue dots; ask questions later.

      Trade is fine how it is... who wants to send a 12 hr convoy to pick up resources..

      Your Attack this is just Silly. You are rewarding Inactive players

      Your Surrender option would just encourage more people uiting than they already do. Stay and fight or lose all your VPs; Units; and stats.
      ah yes firing on all blue dots, your morale must always be high then. You must never get into drawn out wars over firing at every single unit you see. Besides this is another game mode, you can play the original. You completely missed the point of this idea
    • Lionheart wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Actually Territorial Waters a Good Idea: Was thinking that lst night (actually looked up 12 miles from shore) so they could just make 1 little way point out. But better solution would just add a "Fire at any non friendly vessel". No Civilians in this game; either you are an active threat or potential future threat. Either way Im sinking anything heading anywhere near my area. And by Day 20 Im laying claim to half the pacific; the tax for trying to drive transports across is they get sunk. I Fire on all unidentified Blue dots; ask questions later.

      Trade is fine how it is... who wants to send a 12 hr convoy to pick up resources..

      Your Attack this is just Silly. You are rewarding Inactive players

      Your Surrender option would just encourage more people uiting than they already do. Stay and fight or lose all your VPs; Units; and stats.
      ah yes firing on all blue dots, your morale must always be high then. You must never get into drawn out wars over firing at every single unit you see. Besides this is another game mode, you can play the original. You completely missed the point of this idea
      Its a war game; yes you have wars. Its not Sim City.
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Lionheart wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Actually Territorial Waters a Good Idea: Was thinking that lst night (actually looked up 12 miles from shore) so they could just make 1 little way point out. But better solution would just add a "Fire at any non friendly vessel". No Civilians in this game; either you are an active threat or potential future threat. Either way Im sinking anything heading anywhere near my area. And by Day 20 Im laying claim to half the pacific; the tax for trying to drive transports across is they get sunk. I Fire on all unidentified Blue dots; ask questions later.

      Trade is fine how it is... who wants to send a 12 hr convoy to pick up resources..

      Your Attack this is just Silly. You are rewarding Inactive players

      Your Surrender option would just encourage more people uiting than they already do. Stay and fight or lose all your VPs; Units; and stats.
      ah yes firing on all blue dots, your morale must always be high then. You must never get into drawn out wars over firing at every single unit you see. Besides this is another game mode, you can play the original. You completely missed the point of this idea
      Its a war game; yes you have wars. Its not Sim City.
      My point is the tension of potential combat can be exciting rather then only fighting. This is a system to build the excitement. This game is like a movie that is all climax. This adds the buildup. This may not be for you, but it will add a lot to other people
    • Lionheart wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Lionheart wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Actually Territorial Waters a Good Idea: Was thinking that lst night (actually looked up 12 miles from shore) so they could just make 1 little way point out. But better solution would just add a "Fire at any non friendly vessel". No Civilians in this game; either you are an active threat or potential future threat. Either way Im sinking anything heading anywhere near my area. And by Day 20 Im laying claim to half the pacific; the tax for trying to drive transports across is they get sunk. I Fire on all unidentified Blue dots; ask questions later.

      Trade is fine how it is... who wants to send a 12 hr convoy to pick up resources..

      Your Attack this is just Silly. You are rewarding Inactive players

      Your Surrender option would just encourage more people uiting than they already do. Stay and fight or lose all your VPs; Units; and stats.
      ah yes firing on all blue dots, your morale must always be high then. You must never get into drawn out wars over firing at every single unit you see. Besides this is another game mode, you can play the original. You completely missed the point of this idea
      Its a war game; yes you have wars. Its not Sim City.
      My point is the tension of potential combat can be exciting rather then only fighting. This is a system to build the excitement. This game is like a movie that is all climax. This adds the buildup. This may not be for you, but it will add a lot to other people
      No exciting is killing troops and winning games. Im winning as fast as possible when other countries sit back and devise their mastermind day 60 assualt; Ive won the game in 30 days ;)

      Why would I want to waste 10 days retreiving my Resources; thats like saying watching the paint dry builds excitement, what if we made slow drying paint that took a week and watched it for 7 days instead of 8 hrs...how much fun would that be ;) Man the excitment when it would finally be dry
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp
    • When in reality the markets are usually dried up day 5. so your suggestion would make people even less likely to trade.

      And how is allowing some one to surrender exciting. Do you think if Japan surrendered in 1942 USA would have let them keep all their lands in philapeanes; pacific; korea; china? Or allow Nazis to keep all of europe?

      Hell no. There is no tap out in war and you get to keep wht you had won.
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      There is no tap out in war and you get to keep wht you had won.

      Yes and no.
      For the most part you are correct.
      However there are several examples of 20th century wars where the victor did not "get to keep what you had won".
      Territory seized in combat was lost in the peace treaties.

      1903 British-Tibet war
      1911 Italian-Turkish war
      1913 Second Balkan war
      1919 Hungarian–Czechoslovak War
      1919 Polish–Czechoslovak War
      1956 Suez Crisis

    • Hydralysk wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      There is no tap out in war and you get to keep wht you had won.
      Yes and no.
      For the most part you are correct.
      However there are several examples of 20th century wars where the victor did not "get to keep what you had won".
      Territory seized in combat was lost in the peace treaties.

      1903 British-Tibet war
      1911 Italian-Turkish war
      1913 Second Balkan war
      1919 Hungarian–Czechoslovak War
      1919 Polish–Czechoslovak War
      1956 Suez Crisis


      all small regional conflicts and only 1 in last 100 years. But no conditional surrenders since. Korea was a stalemate and technically still a war. just a 70 yr cease fire. USA left Vietnam; the north took eveything. Russia left afgan; lost everything. USA left afgan; have/will lose everything. USSR gave up Cold war lost all eastern europe.

      Italy is famous for quiting wars BTW. Both WWs switched sides; get out when the gettings good; but thats betraying alliance not conditional surrender. Dont think Italy has won a war since Roman Empire ;(

      Italy actually lost territory despite ending on the winning side of WW2 (Lucky they didnt lose whole country after fighting with nazis).
      Suez Crisis was a 9 day conflict.

      Italy didnt even get to keep its ill gotten gains; despite ending war on winning side.




      Bulgaria
      Bulgaria was restored to its borders of 1 January 1941, returning Vardar Macedonia to Yugoslavia and Eastern Macedonia and Western Thrace to Greece, but keeping Southern Dobruja per the Treaty of Craiova, leaving Bulgaria as the only former Axis power to keep territory that was gained during the Second World War.[5]
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp

      The post was edited 6 times, last by The Pale Rider ().

    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      There is no tap out in war and you get to keep wht you had won.
      If you are going to retrocon your own words, at least have the decency to own up to it.
      Ain't nuttin in what you wrote above saying "does not apply to conflicts that I consider not worthy of being named wars", or "only pertains to wars in the current century", or even "must last longer than 9 days".

      As for that, the 1967 Israeli-Arab war took six days, so I guess in your book it doesn't count as a war?

      There are a number of wars happening in this century where the victor didn't "keep what they had won."
      I didn't bring them up earlier cuz you didn't have your revised criteria posted then.

      1932 Chaco War
      1934 Saudi–Yemeni War
      1941 Ecuadorian–Peruvian War
      1964 Ethiopian–Somali War
      1969 El Salvador-Hoduras War
      1973 Arab–Israeli War

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Hydralysk ().

    • Hydralysk wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      There is no tap out in war and you get to keep wht you had won.
      If you are going to retrocon your own words, at least have the decency to own up to it.Ain't nuttin in what you wrote above saying "does not apply to conflicts that I consider not worthy of being named wars", or "only pertains to wars in the current century", or even "must last longer than 9 days".

      As for that, the 1967 Israeli-Arab war took six days, so I guess in your book it doesn't count as a war?

      There are a number of wars happening in this century where the victor didn't "keep what they had won."
      I didn't bring them up earlier cuz you didn't have your revised criteria posted then.

      1932 Chaco War
      1934 Saudi–Yemeni War
      1941 Ecuadorian–Peruvian War
      1964 Ethiopian–Somali War
      1969 El Salvador-Hoduras War
      1973 Arab–Israeli War
      Well technically based on your def of every armed conflict is a war; Ohio and Michigan were at war once in "battle" of Toledo. Regardless point of this game is world domination not settlement of a regional conflict.

      The Israeli - Arab war spans many conflicts over a half of century. Not a 6 day conflict.

      Arab-Israeli wars, series of military conflicts between Israeli forces and various Arab forces, most notably in 1948–49, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, and 2006. And is still going on today.

      If the war was settled than would not be continued conflicts. This is like listing every battle in a war as a separate war.
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp

      The post was edited 1 time, last by The Pale Rider ().

    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      When in reality the markets are usually dried up day 5. so your suggestion would make people even less likely to trade.

      And how is allowing some one to surrender exciting. Do you think if Japan surrendered in 1942 USA would have let them keep all their lands in philapeanes; pacific; korea; china? Or allow Nazis to keep all of europe?

      Hell no. There is no tap out in war and you get to keep wht you had won.
      ok then, no surrender. If you read the whole thing, then you would see each trade gave a victory point. that is the one of the incentives to trade
    • "Regardless point of this game is world domination not settlement of a regional conflict."
      Nice, but not what you wrote earlier.
      Again with you backtracking on your earlier statements.
      I suspect you believe that doing so is a feature, not a bug.

      "Arab-Israeli wars ..."
      Again you evade, but notice that my reference was to a particular war in those conflicts, hence "1973 Arab-Israeli War".

      "If the war was settled than would not be continued conflicts."
      Yer funny.
      Wrong, but still funny.

      Try looking up Websters definition of 'War'.
      " A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations."
    • Lionheart wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      When in reality the markets are usually dried up day 5. so your suggestion would make people even less likely to trade.

      And how is allowing some one to surrender exciting. Do you think if Japan surrendered in 1942 USA would have let them keep all their lands in philapeanes; pacific; korea; china? Or allow Nazis to keep all of europe?

      Hell no. There is no tap out in war and you get to keep wht you had won.
      ok then, no surrender. If you read the whole thing, then you would see each trade gave a victory point. that is the one of the incentives to trade
      Oh, real nice, ... day 2: 1500 trades of 1 single resource, game over.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Lionheart wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      When in reality the markets are usually dried up day 5. so your suggestion would make people even less likely to trade.

      And how is allowing some one to surrender exciting. Do you think if Japan surrendered in 1942 USA would have let them keep all their lands in philapeanes; pacific; korea; china? Or allow Nazis to keep all of europe?

      Hell no. There is no tap out in war and you get to keep wht you had won.
      ok then, no surrender. If you read the whole thing, then you would see each trade gave a victory point. that is the one of the incentives to trade
      Oh, real nice, ... day 2: 1500 trades of 1 single resource, game over.
      Ever notice all these "recommendations" come from people who have played a few games with limited success. They can win in current struture of a war game andwant to make it a build; diplomacy game. Had one dude few games ago as China. Posts article saying he will protect all small countries from invasion and we should all just build missiles and crap for 40 days without war. Ahhh no thanks... I was Japan and curb stomped him day 7 ;)
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp
    • The Pale Rider wrote:

      Ever notice all these "recommendations" come from people who have played a few games with limited success.
      Ever notice that some of these suggestion 'disapproval's' come from a few people who are fixated on keeping the game pretty much the way it has been since inception.
      I suspect that they believe they have a strategy that works within the existing game abstractions, and they do not appear to want to enlarge/enhance/improve the game scope.
      As near as I can tell, the concept of adding game depth of play, or encouraging new emergent behaviors appears as anathema to them.

    • Because every suggestion made would make the game boring as hell; encourage builders to turtle up; quit the game and not be penalized; perform mundane tasks like resupplying troops; refueling planes; sending trade ships; etc. which game already builds in these random functions...lol.

      What's next have an ambassador units; where they could walk to a third nation for 3 days to get to a peace summit. The Avatars have some tea and could hash out the peace; since you guys obviously don't know how or want to fight.

      This isnt SimCity; Farm Tycoon or Minecraft; its a war strategy game with objective to conquer the world. Not make world peace and role play.

      To win a 5 man Coalition game; you have to conquer 85 pct of remaining world. Who do I need to make peace with?

      Heck surprised you guys havent suggested the magic wizard unit; and he can build magic spells to throw at people.
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp