Trade agreements and Water supplies

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

    • Trade agreements and Water supplies

      1. ability to trade with a country using a specific road.
      2. water supplies

      I'm making these suggestions in a single thread, because they imply the same thing: strategic advantage.
      First of all, trade routs would make the suburbs sometimes more important than cities. Next, trade agreements would force the players to do some diplomacy. It is impossible to survive in 21th century without diplomacy, whereas many players do absolutely no diplomacy in the game. The concept of trade agreements will change many things. Real example. China has started the project of his silkway, and it has such a big strategic importance that a lot of countries are competing to get the road pass through their territory. Players who do actually play with a strategy will get significant advantage, this is more realistic, more fun, more intense and more brainwork will be needed (which's the reason I love this game). + I think it will be add an incredible balance to the game.
      In addition to this idea, you could add more importance to energy in the future, so people will have more reason to fight for oil.
      Next. Water supplies are extremely important. They just have a huge strategic importance. By adding these features, players will have to develop a strategy.

      P.S. I understand that such features may complicate the game, and many people don't like complicated games, so this might be unprofitable for you.
    • zneigras wrote:

      1. ability to trade with a country using a specific road.
      2. water supplies

      I'm making these suggestions in a single thread, because they imply the same thing: strategic advantage.
      First of all, trade routs would make the suburbs sometimes more important than cities. Next, trade agreements would force the players to do some diplomacy. It is impossible to survive in 21th century without diplomacy, whereas many players do absolutely no diplomacy in the game. The concept of trade agreements will change many things. Real example. China has started the project of his silkway, and it has such a big strategic importance that a lot of countries are competing to get the road pass through their territory. Players who do actually play with a strategy will get significant advantage, this is more realistic, more fun, more intense and more brainwork will be needed (which's the reason I love this game). + I think it will be add an incredible balance to the game.
      In addition to this idea, you could add more importance to energy in the future, so people will have more reason to fight for oil.
      Next. Water supplies are extremely important. They just have a huge strategic importance. By adding these features, players will have to develop a strategy.

      P.S. I understand that such features may complicate the game, and many people don't like complicated games, so this might be unprofitable for you.
      You do understand your suggestion calls for the exact opposite of what you say here: "I think it will be add an incredible balance to the game." - it creates further unbalance with haves and have nots. It can be bad enough trying to compete starting with 5 cities while some start with 7 or more, but now you want to increase the divide.
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

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

      zneigras wrote:

      1. ability to trade with a country using a specific road.
      2. water supplies

      I'm making these suggestions in a single thread, because they imply the same thing: strategic advantage.
      First of all, trade routs would make the suburbs sometimes more important than cities. Next, trade agreements would force the players to do some diplomacy. It is impossible to survive in 21th century without diplomacy, whereas many players do absolutely no diplomacy in the game. The concept of trade agreements will change many things. Real example. China has started the project of his silkway, and it has such a big strategic importance that a lot of countries are competing to get the road pass through their territory. Players who do actually play with a strategy will get significant advantage, this is more realistic, more fun, more intense and more brainwork will be needed (which's the reason I love this game). + I think it will be add an incredible balance to the game.
      In addition to this idea, you could add more importance to energy in the future, so people will have more reason to fight for oil.
      Next. Water supplies are extremely important. They just have a huge strategic importance. By adding these features, players will have to develop a strategy.

      P.S. I understand that such features may complicate the game, and many people don't like complicated games, so this might be unprofitable for you.
      You do understand your suggestion calls for the exact opposite of what you say here: "I think it will be add an incredible balance to the game." - it creates further unbalance with haves and have nots. It can be bad enough trying to compete starting with 5 cities while some start with 7 or more, but now you want to increase the divide.
      That. And also, public games currently have almost half of the player go inactive before day 10. Ideas like this that complicate the very basic mechanic of gathering resources would likely drive many more new players away.
      but, that's just my 2 cents' worth
    • MicahWill wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      zneigras wrote:

      1. ability to trade with a country using a specific road.
      2. water supplies

      I'm making these suggestions in a single thread, because they imply the same thing: strategic advantage.
      First of all, trade routs would make the suburbs sometimes more important than cities. Next, trade agreements would force the players to do some diplomacy. It is impossible to survive in 21th century without diplomacy, whereas many players do absolutely no diplomacy in the game. The concept of trade agreements will change many things. Real example. China has started the project of his silkway, and it has such a big strategic importance that a lot of countries are competing to get the road pass through their territory. Players who do actually play with a strategy will get significant advantage, this is more realistic, more fun, more intense and more brainwork will be needed (which's the reason I love this game). + I think it will be add an incredible balance to the game.
      In addition to this idea, you could add more importance to energy in the future, so people will have more reason to fight for oil.
      Next. Water supplies are extremely important. They just have a huge strategic importance. By adding these features, players will have to develop a strategy.

      P.S. I understand that such features may complicate the game, and many people don't like complicated games, so this might be unprofitable for you.
      You do understand your suggestion calls for the exact opposite of what you say here: "I think it will be add an incredible balance to the game." - it creates further unbalance with haves and have nots. It can be bad enough trying to compete starting with 5 cities while some start with 7 or more, but now you want to increase the divide.
      That. And also, public games currently have almost half of the player go inactive before day 10. Ideas like this that complicate the very basic mechanic of gathering resources would likely drive many more new players away.
      Agreed. There's no point in spending weeks trying to get a small trade advantage over the other(like US and China's attempts to beat the other), when u can occupy the entire enemy country within 3 days, taking their production with you.
      "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
      English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."
    • to add on in more detail; I believe there should be power plants in each city (not buildable ie. static like lvl 1 ports) and if these power plants are damaged enough from air strikes, artillery bombardment or special forces sabotage (separate idea of mine where instead of bringing down morale and draining every buildings of hit points you can target specific buildings and plant time bombs to go off after a certain number of hours [5% chance the bombs will be found and destroyed every hour]) it will slow down production (not stop it) and give defendings forces a -25% defensive penalty counteracting the entrenchment bonuses.

      As for the trade paths he mentioned i think its ridiculous unless, instead of trading resources it generates additional income, a good way to balance would be to put a smaller resource strain on buildings and troops and maybe make spies a larger threat (but put a larger strain on money)

      The post was edited 1 time, last by bigman: Explanation lost in translation ().

    • bigman wrote:

      to add on in more detail; I believe there should be power plants in each city (not buildable ie. static like lvl 1 ports) and if these power plants are damaged enough from air strikes, artillery bombardment or special forces sabotage (separate idea of mine where instead of bringing down morale and draining every buildings of hit points you can target specific buildings and plant time bombs to go off after a certain number of hours [5% chance the bombs will be found and destroyed every hour]) it will slow down production (not stop it) and give defendings forces a -25% defensive penalty counteracting the entrenchment bonuses.

      As for the trade paths he mentioned i think its ridiculous unless instead of trading resources it generates additional income, a good way to balance would be to put a smaller resource strain on buildings and troops and maybe make spies a larger threat (but put a larger strain on money)
      coding.jpg
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD