What do you guys think?

Welcome to the Tour of Generals forum.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

What do you guys think?
Topic Started: Jul 24 2010, 10:40 PM (117 Views)
icadil	Jul 24 2010, 10:40 PM Post #1
Posts: 376 Group: Members Member #227 Joined: Jan 22, 2009 Clan: Good Natured Gamers	I have often times found myself in situations where I needed just a little more cash to protect myself or to make a critical advance. I was just thinking about some kind of system where you could sell one or more of your territories for some cash. The sold territory would then become neutral. You would be able to get about triple the value of the territory, if you have controlled it for more than 3-6 turns. The drawback would be to prevent you from taking that territory again for the amount of turns of cash that you received, Triple normal value= 3 turns, 6 times the value = 6 turns. An alternative punishment would prevent you from taking the territory while it remained neutral. What are you guys thoughts? Fell free to change things around, and try new ideas.



Sandboxbob	Jul 24 2010, 10:43 PM Post #2
Posts: 256 Group: Members Member #429 Joined: Aug 15, 2009 Clan: D3STROYERS :President	well im not sure this may be a great idea, becasue lets say in capitals , i have a bunch of territroies , i can just sell all of them except 1 and move with a massive army into another persons capital



icadil	Jul 24 2010, 10:47 PM Post #3
Posts: 376 Group: Members Member #227 Joined: Jan 22, 2009 Clan: Good Natured Gamers	There can be a limit on how many territories you can sell per turn, and they can even cost a turn per sell. This would be something very last resort, and not something you would use very often. Just as a last ditch effort to defend from an advance you know will kill you.



Sandboxbob	Jul 24 2010, 10:51 PM Post #4
Posts: 256 Group: Members Member #429 Joined: Aug 15, 2009 Clan: D3STROYERS :President	idk seems like there can be many ways in which it can be taken advantage of , other example is king of the hill, u sell the hill u get over 2k depending on how much it is



icadil	Jul 24 2010, 10:54 PM Post #5
Posts: 376 Group: Members Member #227 Joined: Jan 22, 2009 Clan: Good Natured Gamers	We can build exceptions into the plan, I don't expect my rules to be the final outcome. We can make it so that you cannot sell the Hill. I don't think anyone would want to sell it anyway, as that is the entire focus of that game mode. IF we used the rule that you cannot take back a country you have sold, then even if they did sell the Hill then they could not take it back until someone else has taken it, and then they would have to fight that defending army first.



Beavers	Jul 24 2010, 11:44 PM Post #6
Posts: 421 Group: Members Member #207 Joined: Jan 18, 2009 Clan: Good Natured Gamers	I don't think that this idea should be implemented. There's not really any analogous situation in the real world that I know of where a country can just get rid of portions of its territory and make a profit off of it. Sure one can abandon an undefendable frontier and try to evacuate all useful people, material, and equipment (see the Soviet Union during the Nazi invasion in 1941), but it doesn't really add to one's ability to recruit forces, it just saves those already created for another day, which one can already do in-game by running away from an advancing enemy force. If anything like this would be introduced something like a national debt could be introduced whereby one could borrow up to a certain percentage of their income (or value of all regions they control perhaps) and pay interest on that amount plus any debt that is accumulated via looting by the enemy. Even so, I would be very wary about adding anything that allows players to select to get more cash on demand because it seems to be just asking for abuse of some sort. Additionally, sometimes you just don't have enough money to accomplish the goals you have at that moment and you either need to modify your goals, hope your enemy inadvertently acts to improve your situation, or strike-up a short term alliance with another player to cooperate to further both your goals, etc.



TCTriangle	Jul 25 2010, 07:17 PM Post #7
Posts: 223 Group: Members Member #301 Joined: Mar 4, 2009 Clan: NONE	I, too, am opposed to this idea. There are so many ways to abuse it that are not very realistic and could kill game balance. HOWEVER, I think you should be able to GIVE UP the territory, especially in maps like the World Map, when the attrition kills your income. In that case, you can give up that territory, whereby it becomes neutral, but you don't get anything back for it. If this idea works, it would definitely have to be one of those on/off options.



Beavers	Jul 29 2010, 11:33 AM Post #8
Posts: 421 Group: Members Member #207 Joined: Jan 18, 2009 Clan: Good Natured Gamers	TCTriangle Jul 25 2010, 07:17 PM I, too, am opposed to this idea. There are so many ways to abuse it that are not very realistic and could kill game balance. HOWEVER, I think you should be able to GIVE UP the territory, especially in maps like the World Map, when the attrition kills your income. In that case, you can give up that territory, whereby it becomes neutral, but you don't get anything back for it. If this idea works, it would definitely have to be one of those on/off options. I don't think there should be an option to abandon regions because it too could be abused. Imagine someone who has conquered the NE US in the usual way, with many small armies, then they abandon it, wait for next turn update, collect funds without all the pesky attrition, then reconquer the NE by using the little armies left in place, buy forces with all the cost deductions from that region, make moves, attack, whatever, then abandon the region again and repeat at next update. Everyone can look at the attrition rate of a game before joining it and can use that knowledge to determine where to start and what kind of a strategy to employ. If it is possible to make attrition less important by giving up small value regions when they become burdensome, the game loses some strategy. If however admin is going to make more maps with 60+ regions (such as Vietnam's 64), then it might be good to add some more choices of attrition rate, such as 0.5 and 1.5, so there are more choices at the bottom of the attrition scale for dealing with having so many regions.



TCTriangle	Jul 29 2010, 03:58 PM Post #9
Posts: 223 Group: Members Member #301 Joined: Mar 4, 2009 Clan: NONE	Niels Jul 29 2010, 11:33 AM TCTriangle Jul 25 2010, 07:17 PM I, too, am opposed to this idea. There are so many ways to abuse it that are not very realistic and could kill game balance. HOWEVER, I think you should be able to GIVE UP the territory, especially in maps like the World Map, when the attrition kills your income. In that case, you can give up that territory, whereby it becomes neutral, but you don't get anything back for it. If this idea works, it would definitely have to be one of those on/off options. I don't think there should be an option to abandon regions because it too could be abused. Imagine someone who has conquered the NE US in the usual way, with many small armies, then they abandon it, wait for next turn update, collect funds without all the pesky attrition, then reconquer the NE by using the little armies left in place, buy forces with all the cost deductions from that region, make moves, attack, whatever, then abandon the region again and repeat at next update. Everyone can look at the attrition rate of a game before joining it and can use that knowledge to determine where to start and what kind of a strategy to employ. If it is possible to make attrition less important by giving up small value regions when they become burdensome, the game loses some strategy. If however admin is going to make more maps with 60+ regions (such as Vietnam's 64), then it might be good to add some more choices of attrition rate, such as 0.5 and 1.5, so there are more choices at the bottom of the attrition scale for dealing with having so many regions. Well obviously there would be a limit to how many regions you can abandon, and also a time limit before you can recapture it.



Beavers	Jul 29 2010, 05:46 PM Post #10
Posts: 421 Group: Members Member #207 Joined: Jan 18, 2009 Clan: Good Natured Gamers	In that case, my point becomes somewhat moot, but the usefulness of being able to abandon regions decreases significantly if you can only give up one or two a turn. (Even if giving up one a turn, one could repeatedly claim and abandon DC with its -8% ALL deduction to avoid a bit of attrition and still get a healthy cost reduction)



3 users reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous)

Create your own social network with a free forum. Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Gameplay Discussion · Next Topic »